2013-11-07 NBU News

Northbay Uprising radio news
Thursdays, between 4 to 5pm, with headlines and interviews with people behind the news! Journalist's Notebook  [link], George Seldes had it right: "Tell the Truth, Then Run Like Hell!"

Join our Community Journalist program! Covering "707 to 818, the Bay Valley". Send us news & info to [northbayuprising@gmail.com]

Interview with Teri of "100 Thousand Poets for Change" [http://100tpc.org/], who are organizing for change using the power of creativity, with All POWER TO THE POETS as they act in solidarity with the current Justice campaign and movement for Human & Civil Rights in Sonoma County!
More information about the campaign for Justice for Andy Lopez Cruz! (Santa Rosa, d. 2013-10-22) is at this [link] !
And, be sure to watch the new "No Justice No Peace: California's Battle Against Police Brutality & Racist Violence" video documentary, more info and articles about it here [link], produced by Liberation News

Headlines!
Continuing our dedication to the Captive Nations within the United States,
November is Indigenous Nations month!

National Congress of American Indians Passes Resolution Supporting Sherwood Valley Pomo Struggle with Caltrans [link]

When Prisons Retaliate: Calif. Inmates Still Paying Price for Demanding Rights; 'We demand an end to retaliation, and those demands are entwined with continued political organizing work to change the system', 2013-11-04 by Sarah Lazare from "CommonDreams.org" [link]

From the Northbay Copwatch: Oakland Police provide political affiliation information to private business for purpose of intimidating targeted dissidents [link]


ACTION CALENDER
More Action Calenders: IndyBay [link]; Ecology Center [link]; Nuclear Resister [link].





Eyewitness Account:
Greeks Decry Fascist Violence!
Tensions were still running high when U.S. anti-fascists visited Greece shortly after the September murder of an anti-racist rapper by neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. In  Athens, they met with a leader of the group that has organized mass protests, KEERFA, United Against Racism and the Fascist Threat. Hear their first-hand account and add your thought on the resurgence of fascism in Europe.
 Sunday, November 17, 1:00pm.
Home-cooked brunch served for an $8 donation at 12:15pm. New Valencia Hall, 747 Polk St., San Francisco (at Ellis, near Civic Center, BART/Muni and on #19, 31,47, & 49 Muni bus lines).
For more info, contact [415-864-1278] [baFSP@earthlink.net].


Debtors' Assembly: Strike Debt Bay Area - You Are Not Alone. Or a Loan!
[indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/04/18745934.php]:
Saturday November 23, 2:00 PM - 4:30 PM
Location: Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Fellowship Hall [1924 Cedar Street, Berkeley, CA 94709]
Contact: Hannah Appel [strike.debt.bay.area@gmail.com]

Debt keeps us isolated, ashamed, and afraid - of becoming homeless, of going hungry, of being crippled or killed by treatable illness, or of being trapped in poverty-level jobs. Those facing foreclosure, medical debt, student debt, or credit card debt feel alone, hounded by debt collectors, and forced into unrewarding work to keep up with payments.
 Join us for Strike Debt Bay Area's (website and Facebook) third Debtors' Assembly, where we will come together to understand debt in this modern society of ours and how to fight it collectively. This event is generously sponsored by the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee.
This Debtors' Assembly will be an opportunity for people to come together, gain an understanding of how debt works, share their own debt experiences, and work on various ways to change the unjust debt system and begin to organize debt resistance.
Strike Debt Bay Area is the local chapter of Strike Debt, an international movement of groups working to build popular resistance to all forms of unjust debt. Strike Debt has organized the Rolling Jubilee, the Debt Resistors Operations Manual, and local debtors’ assemblies.
Strike Debt supports the creation of just and sustainable economies, based on mutual aid, common goods, and public affluence. We owe the financial institutions nothing. It is to our friends, families and community that we owe everything.


Thanksgiving Feast Tribute to Native Americans
Sunday, November 24, 3:00pm 
 The 30 million indigenous people on this continent before Columbus produced brilliant scientists and astronomers, architects and builders. These women and men were orators, farmers, jewelry-makers, creators of political institutions and social orders that lasted hundreds or thousands of years. At the time of the conquest, the indigenous people cultivated over 300 food crops which today are the basis of 60% of what is eaten on our planet.  Celebrate the contributions of this hemisphere's first people. Enjoy a home-cooked roast turkey dinner, with vegetarian entree, accompanied by new world foods.
 $10-15 donation. For work exchange, call in advance.
New Valencia Hall, 747 Polk St., San Francisco, CA 94109
Hosted by Bay Area Radical Women
 To volunteer or for more information, call 415-864-1278 or email baRadicalWomen@earthlink.net  www.radicalwomen.org

Zero Tolerance Policies: Fortress or Paper Tiger?

Organize a Labor Union! [link]

2013-11-06 by Robert M. Schwartz from "Labor Notes" [http://labornotes.org/2013/11/zero-tolerance-policies-fortress-or-paper-tiger]:
Robert Schwartz, a Boston labor lawyer, is the author of Just Cause: A Union Guide to Winning Discipline Cases.     
---
Bosses love zero tolerance policies. One arbitrator has called them “the last refuge of weak managers.” A zero tolerance policy provides that workers who commit a specified infraction will be immediately discharged with no consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the employee’s seniority, or the employee’s past record. Common zero tolerance offenses include positive drug tests, felony convictions, fighting, sexual harassment, failing to shut off equipment while repairing it, and incurring more than one motor vehicle accident within a limited period. If the union questions the policy, the employer is likely to cite contractual language giving it the right to issue rules and regulations.

THE STRONGEST DEFENSE -
Overly broad zero tolerance policies can lead to grossly unfair punishments. An employee may be dismissed because she pushed back when a co-worker assaulted her without provocation. A worker with an unblemished record may be fired because he tested positive after taking a single toke of marijuana during a vacation. A driver with an outstanding safety record may be discharged because she scratched her truck while backing up in a narrow enclosure. When an employee whose conduct would result in a warning or suspension is discharged because of a zero tolerance policy, the union should assert that the policy violates the just-cause clause of the contract. Many contracts have language requiring that employer rules be “reasonable” and “not in conflict with” any part of the agreement. Except for policies covering inherently egregious conduct such as stealing or conduct that threatens the very existence of the enterprise, summary discharge is contrary to the basic principles of just cause. It is widely accepted that the just-cause concept compels an employer to weigh the gravity of the offense, consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances, and apply the least severe penalty that is likely to lead the employee to correct his or her mistakes. Zero tolerance unilaterally extinguishes these bargained protections. Labor arbitrators frequently rule that when a company policy conflicts with the contract, the policy is of no effect. For example, a zero tolerance policy might declare that anyone involved in a fight will be terminated no matter whether the employee was the aggressor or the victim. But if the employee was simply defending herself, did not use a weapon, and did not cause injury, an arbitrator will probably not sustain the employee’s discharge. Likewise, if an employee with a stellar record commits a minor infraction, just cause requires a penalty that will allow the employee to improve—despite the wording of a zero tolerance policy.

UNION ACQUIESCENCE -
The union will have a hard time contending that zero tolerance violates the contract if it has failed to challenge previous discharges. The employer will undoubtedly argue that “past practice” shows agreement with the policy. To overcome that contention, the union should distinguish the current case from the earlier cases, explaining that the current case more clearly violates the just-cause standard.

OTHER ARGUMENTS -
A union can sometimes use the wording of the zero tolerance policy against the employer. For example, a policy might say that a violation “may” lead to immediate discharge. According to many labor arbitrators, this language means that dismissal is only one of several possible alternatives and that the chosen penalty will take account of all the relevant factors, including the gravity of the infraction and the employee’s record. The union can make a similar argument if the policy says an offense is “subject” to discharge or that an infraction will be punished by discipline “up to and including discharge.”

ZERO IN THE CONTRACT -
It is hard to understand how a union could allow it, but zero tolerance policies sometimes find their way into the contract, often in a section titled “cardinal offenses.” A contractual zero tolerance policy gives management the right to disregard some of the basic principles of just cause, such as considering the gravity of the offense, taking account of mitigating circumstances, and applying progressive discipline. Although the union can raise defenses such as lack of evidence, lax enforcement, disparate treatment, and due process, it will be fighting with one hand tied behind its back.

WHEN THE POLICY IS NEW -
Labor law is firm that an employer must give advance notice and allow the union to bargain before issuing a zero tolerance policy or amending an existing one. Even if the contract’s management rights clause waives the union’s right to negotiate on the contents of the rule, the employer must allow the union to bargain on how it will be applied. If the employer enacts a zero tolerance policy without giving notice to the union or ignores a request to bargain, the union should file an unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board, or, in the case of a public sector union, at the appropriate state labor board. The union can also file a grievance contending that the policy violates the contract. It may, however, be better to wait until an employee is discharged: an arbitrator is more likely to invalidate a disciplinary policy when an employee has been penalized under it.

No Tolerance for Zero Tolerance -
In a published case involving a trucking company, veteran arbitrator Stephen Goldberg reinstated a driver with back pay despite a company policy mandating discharge for two accidents in a six-month period. Both accidents were minor and the employee had nearly 10 years’ service. The arbitrator explained: "To the extent that the accident policy dictates the discharge of an employee involved in two chargeable accidents within a six-month period, with no consideration of the circumstances of those accidents or the prior record of the employee involved, that policy is wholly unreasonable. "It is also inconsistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement because that Agreement permits discharge only for just cause, while the policy requires discharge even when, as in the instant case, just cause for discharge does not exist. Because it is inconsistent with the Agreement, the accident policy, to the extent that it would require discharge in this case, is of no effect."

When Prisons Retaliate: Calif. Inmates Still Paying Price for Demanding Rights; 'We demand an end to retaliation, and those demands are entwined with continued political organizing work to change the system'

Statewide Prisoner Hunger Strike to Stop Torture, Long-Term Isolation & Indefinite Solitary Confinement in Prisons [link]

2013-11-04 by Sarah Lazare from "CommonDreams.org" [http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/04-0]:
Four months after California prisoners declared a hunger strike to protest solitary confinement and other abuse, they are still suffering retaliatory punishment at the hands of corrections authorities, the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition announced Monday.

"We demand an end to retaliation, and those demands are entwined with continued political organizing work to change the system," said Isaac Ontiveros, with the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition and Critical Resistance, in an interview with Common Dreams. "It is the minimum of human decency to not retaliate against people who participated in the peaceful protest."

Prisoners who participated in the California-wide prisoner hunger strike, launched July eighth, have been slammed with what are called a '115 write-ups.' The penalty accuses the prisoners "of committing a serious rule violation" for participation in the hunger strike, according to a statement from the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition.

The write-ups have serious consequences for inmates who can face years-long extensions of their solitary confinement and denial of parole as a result. "It is something that goes into your record, so that when you are reviewed for whatever reason around parole, moving from one place to another, it affects the nature of your imprisonment," Ontiveros explains.

"People perceived as supporting the strike, whether refusing meals, refusing work, or supporting the strike with other action faced retaliation," said attorney Caitlin Kelly-Henry in an interview with Common Dreams. "As many as 30,000 people are documented as refusing meals at the time the strike was declared. We don't have numbers of people who refused work. It could be as many as hundreds or thousands of people who faced 115 and other write-ups."

The 115 write-ups are part of broad retaliatory measures inflicted against prisoners who participated in the hunger strike, including searching cells, obstructing inmates' communications with the outside world—including lawyers—punishing strikers with more severe solitary confinement, and intimidating inmates to prevent them from appealing the harsh measures. Prisons were also given the green light to force-feed hunger striking prisoners—a move that human rights advocates slammed as a gross violation of human rights.

Much retaliation is informal, in an environment where prison guards hold staggering power over the lives of inmates. "We've received letters around individual guards or groups of guards targeting people who participated in the strike," explains Ontiveros. "This is highly racialized, with high incidence of targeting of black prisoners who participated in the strike."

In a legislative hearing last month with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation—won by the prisoner hunger strikes and outside support—prison authorities admitted they retaliated against inmates who participated in the hunger strikes, says Ontiveros.

Supporters of the inmates are demanding that Michael Stainer, Director of the Division of Adult Institutions at CDCR, use his authority to immediately reverse the retaliatory measure.

Stainer's office did not immediately respond to repeated requests from Common Dreams for an interview.

Ontiveros says that as supporters on the outside demand an end for retaliation, and push for legislative hearings, they also work to "end the CDCR's repression that leads to solitary confinement.

"This is an important moment to act in very strong solidarity," he added.

Privatization of Public School districts: "Lean In or Stand Up?"

2013-11-04 by Jenny Brown from "Labor Notes" [http://labornotes.org/blogs/2013/11/lean-or-stand]:
Sheryl Sandberg’s hyper-publicized book Lean In is the Facebook COO’s “sort of a feminist manifesto” and it’s full of engaging, self-critical stories as she tries to trim back her workaholic ways to enjoy her family life. These appear alongside enraging anecdotes about the sexism she and women co-workers endure in the male-dominated tech world, and advice on how to deal with it. But one anecdote jumped out at me. Sandberg tells the story of a dear friend with 14-month-old twins who cut her paid hours by two-thirds and ended up doing all the household work. Sandberg wants her friend to say yes to an exciting new job offer, advising that it will make the husband step up to his responsibilities.
The job she’s suggesting turns out to be administering a $100 million donation from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to the Newark schools. Things worked out great for Sandberg’s friend—she took the job and her husband learned to buy groceries. Things didn’t work out so well for the Newark schools. The $100 million from Zuckerberg had a goal: to institute merit pay in the teachers’ contract. “Highly effective” teachers would get a bonus of between $5,000 and $12,500. Teachers deemed unsatisfactory by supervisors could be disciplined or even fired. (The contract also created two tiers: teachers with masters’ degrees could opt out of the merit pay scheme, and most did.)
Teachers unions have rightly resisted this kind of subjective basis for raises because it rewards brown-nosing and shreds solidarity. Nonetheless, after the contract passed with 60 percent of the vote, AFT national President Randi Weingarten celebrated the new contract with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. At the same time, Newark Mayor Corey Booker was privately pushing to close schools and replace them with charters, with Zuckerberg’s foundation picking targets.
Newark parents rose up in arms when they found out. Emails released due to a parent lawsuit revealed that Sandberg was heavily involved, corresponding with Booker’s office, which was trying to make it look like the community was engaged, without actually engaging the community. The emails revealed a desire to spread merit pay to teachers nationally, although Sandberg sounded queasy about emphasizing this. “I wonder if we should basically make this focused on Newark with just a touch of ‘and this will be a national model,’” she wrote.

TEACH HARDER!
From Sandberg’s boss’s-eye view of the world, pay-for-performance leads to excellence. Teachers just need incentives to teach harder. In the real world, merit pay schemes increase pressure but don’t actually improve teaching. “It’s not as if teachers are sitting on their best lessons waiting for a bonus,” said public education defender Diane Ravitch in a recent talk. “Now that components [of the contract] are being implemented,” Newark teacher Brandon Rippey told Labor Notes, “it’s turning teachers’ lives upside down.” He said some supervisors are using the evaluation tool vindictively.
They’re also using it narrowly. Only 5 percent of Newark’s teachers got merit pay in the last cycle, a total of $1.4 million out of the $50 million that was promised over three years. Where’s the rest of the money going? To pay Sandberg’s friend to administer it, for one. But that’s not the end of the story—Newark teachers angry about the contract formed a caucus and promised a vigorous fight against the billionaires’ agenda. They won 18 of 29 e-board seats and almost took the presidency. Instead of leaning in, they stood up, together. Which happens to be a pretty good strategy for dealing with sexism, too, Ms. Sandberg.

Richmond Progressive Alliance solidarity with Ecuador communities affected by Chevron

"Why Ecuador is important to Richmond: 2 upcoming events and a commentary"
2013-11-04 message from Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin:
Dear Friends,
Many of you know that I went on a 5 day trip to Ecuador to see the contaminated area of the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest.   Richmond activist Doria Robinson and East Bay Express reporter John Geluardi joined me on this trip. I would like to invite you to 2 upcoming events as a follow up to this trip.
* This Wednesday evening, Nov 6, at 7 pm, come view the award-winning documentary "Crude" at the Bobby Bowens Progressive Center which explains some of the contamination and health problems left behind by Texaco (now Chevron) in this region of the world. See flyer here: Flyer for Nov 6:

* Then on Sunday evening, Nov 10, at 6:30 pm (program starts at 7 pm) please join us for a Report Back on our trip to Ecuador also to be held at the Bobby Bowens Progressive Center. We will be welcoming a guest from the Amazon region at this event.  See flyer here: flyer for Nov 10 

Lastly, here is a recent commentary I wrote in response to critics about my trip to Ecuador:

"Gayle McLaughlin: Richmond blazes news trails to success"
by Gayle McLaughlin, published by the "Contra Costa Times" [http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_24428626/gayle-mclaughlin-richmond-blazes-news-trails-success]:
In a recent column, Tom Barnidge was clearly distressed about some of my activities as Richmond Mayor. He took grave offense to my recent visit to an Ecuadorean community ravaged by oil pollution, and he slammed our city's bold plan to assist homeowners in danger of foreclosure.
Barnidge may not live in Richmond, but I certainly respect his right to disagree with my positions and the strategies I promote. I also understand that leaders representing movements that challenge "the powers that be" often become lightning rods, subject to ridicule and attack from the press. But the bile of Barnidge's column seems oddly divorced from the reality of Richmond's remarkable progress in the last decade.
By any measure, our city is rising from a history of scarcity and despair, and gaining national attention as a community courageous enough to define its own destiny.
For nearly 10 years I have served on the Richmond City Council, the last 7 years as mayor. I proudly stand by the positive achievements that we, as a community, have achieved during my time in office:
Crime has decreased substantially, with homicides down more than 60 percent.
Chevron was pressured into agreeing to a $114 million tax settlement.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has chosen Richmond for its second campus, which will bring ancillary business and increased local jobs.
Richmond's community survey shows residents are experiencing increased quality of life and city services.
And this is just a sampling of the transformation that is taking place!
Let's be clear: 99 percent of my time as Richmond Mayor is spent in Richmond, focused on local issues. But does anyone still think that the solutions to complex, chronic problems faced by cities like Richmond can be identified -- or must be pursued -- strictly within city limits?
Some critics disparage my insistence that Chevron operate more responsibly in Richmond. This is not my personal crusade; far from it, as my council colleague Tom Butt recently wrote to his E-Forum readers, "Not just the mayor, but the entire City Council, has serious reservations about corporate power in general and Chevron in particular The entire City Council authorized a lawsuit against Chevron that accused the corporation of placing 'profits and executive pay over public safety,' of failing to 'exercise care in its ownership, operation, management, supervision, inspection, maintenance, repair and/or control' of the Richmond refinery, and of causing a diminution of Richmond property values, among many other things."
Some community members wonder why I accepted an invitation from the president of Ecuador to visit a rain forest community devastated by oil pollution.
Like Richmond, this low-income community is standing tall to one of the world's most powerful corporations, demanding Chevron obey a court order to repair the damage.
I went to Ecuador to demonstrate solidarity with this community, but the trip also had tactical benefits for our local lawsuit, as Butt describes: "Collaborating with and supporting litigation of other plaintiffs against a common defendant is an entirely common strategy for litigants."
As we look for new, creative ways to solve Richmond's age-old problems of income inequality, crime, living wage jobs, and sustainable development, we realize that not all efforts will bear immediate fruit.
Wealthy and powerful special interests may fight us every step of the way, but we will remain undeterred. Our community has come too far to turn back.
Will fear of criticism or controversy stop us from trying bold and innovative solutions? Will sarcastic columnists convince us never to stray from the beaten path? Will cynicism prevail?
Not on my watch.

Fresno's illegal anti-Homeless property confiscation center

"Where Hope Goes to Die"
2013-11-03 article and all photos by Mike Rhodes [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/03/18745912.php]:
These photos show where the City of Fresno is temporarily storing property taken from homeless people during the sweeps over the last two months.

The large blue tarps flap in the wind and catch your eye as you drive down south down H street, on your way to the center of downtown Fresno. Few people know that this small city of blue topped storage containers is where the City of Fresno, complying with a Federal court order, has brought the confiscated property of homeless people, as they fled the destruction of their humble shelters. Today, the police are confiscating shopping carts filled with homeless people’s property and adding those to the collection - even if the owner of the property just left their property in front of the Poverello House while they got a bite to eat.
 This confiscation of homeless peoples property started about 2 months ago with the demolitions of downtown Fresno homeless encampments. It continues today as the police and city workers round up homeless people’s property and lock it away behind a barbed wire fence, guarded 24 hours a day/7 days a week, with very little chance that it will be given back to its owners.
 Even when homeless people are with their property, on the streets of Fresno, they are harassed by the police. In an incident that happened about a week ago, a group of homeless people were given “debris in road” citations. The “debris” was their blankets, food, and other items they need to survive.
 There is little chance that homeless people who lost all of their belongings in these raids by the police and city workers will be able to re-claim their property, because there is no place in the city that is currently safe for them to keep it. Nobody can carry everything they need to survive with them all day/every day. Therefore, the “technical” compliance with the Federal court order is simply a cover for the city’s ongoing policy of taking and destroying homeless peoples property, endangering their health, and decreasing their overall quality of life.
 For information about what homeless advocates are doing to respond to this crisis, see: [http://www.helpfresnoshomeless.org]

Confiscated Homeless People’s Property is stored behind this Barbed Wire Fence

These Shopping Carts Were Taken From the Homeless

Sign Identifying Who the Property was Taken From

---
Comments:
"So many questions, so few answers" by Kit Williams -
The sergeant of the police task force charged with following the homeless to ensure that they do not resettle anywhere told me that the police were taking the shopping carts because the carts belonged to stores and would be returned to them, their rightful owners. Apparently this isn't true, as the carts remain lined up beside the storage containers. Are store owners clamoring for the return of their property? I've read nothing that indicates they are.
 The receipt given to a homeless person whose property is confiscated says clearly (on the bottom of the form) that a photo of the property is placed on the reverse side of the form. I have yet to see a single photo of any property.
 The idea that the City is complying with the court order is clearly a farce. At the end of ninety days, the property, if unclaimed, can be discarded by the City. If the City isn't doing so, it's undoubtedly because they don't have the resources (the personpower) to do so, not because they are holding it out of the goodness of their hearts.
 The idea that a homeless person is capable of reclaiming their property before the end of the ninety day period is likewise a farce, as this article states. Because they are homeless (and lack vehicles), they have no way to transport their belongings and no place to put them were they able to reclaim and transport them.
 It is time for all of us to stand up to the City, to insist on both emergency and transitional housing, for safe and legal campgrounds, for some form of housing for those without shelter of any kind. Contact your City Council member now!
 The temperatures are dropping into the 40s, into the range at which people can suffer from hypothermia. Can the City be held liable or found culpable in the deaths of any homeless people who have had the most basic of shelters torn from them? A possible question worth exploring ....

"Fresno's Homeless" by Beau Campbell -
Where I do not agree with some of the problems inherent to the homeless, there should be a safety net or alternative to how they are being treated. 53 million dollars to build a bigger better jail is not the solution. More armed policemen trained to shoot and kill people for the slightest provokation is not a solution. Remember the concentration camps and mass persecution of human life turned out to be the wrong solution in Germany and all of Europe. It all began with the seperation name calling and elitist attitudes I see forming all over the cities throughout the states. More homeless shelters and mental health facilities, certainly not more jails and police.

"Concentration Camps?" by Mike Rhodes -
Responding to Beau Campbell’s comment above: I have been thinking the same thing lately. What the Nazis did to the Jews, Gypsies, and Gays was to first demonize them. Their propaganda machine identified them as criminals (and deviants), they were blamed for the problems in society, and soon the state was confiscating their property. The Nazis then herded up these despised outcasts and put them in camps, far from view. Phase 1 and 2 of this plan has already played out here in Fresno - many people hate the homeless, view them as criminals, and are fine with the city taking their property. The next phase of this diabolical plan is already gaining traction among the ruling elite. The idea of moving homeless people into one large camp, away from any houses or businesses was floated in a Fresno Bee editorial on October 23. They wrote: “We recognize the city's stressed finances. But skilled leadership can move mountains at bargain rates. The mayor should assemble a team of city staff, homeless advocates and community leaders to set up a temporary emergency camp.
The camp should have rules, toilets, wash areas and security. It must be fenced and located in an area without adjacent businesses and homes. Most of all, it should be temporary.”
Read more here: [http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/23/3568717/editorial-illegal-camps-are-cleared.html]
I have always been fascinated by how the people of Germany could have gone down the road that led to the death camps. Are we headed down a similar path? Well, there is a pattern that has been set into motion and we are heading in that direction. Will things play out exactly like they did in Nazi Germany? Probably not, but the pattern so far is pretty strikingly similar. In the end it will depend on what the people of Fresno do in response to this crisis (just like in Germany - the people could have demanded a different outcome). All I can do is report on what is going on and encourage people to stand up for their brothers and sisters whose civil and constitutional rights are being abused.

Dissident Voices: Jeff Monson

"'General world strike can shut down govts owned by corporations' - MMA fighter and anarchist Jeff Monson"
2013-11-01 by  Sophie Shevardnadze from "Russia Today" [http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/democratic-governments-shut-down-042/]:
Do democratic governments still represent the people they claim they were chosen by? How to break the dependency between governments and corporations? Are governments needed altogether or have they turned into ruling elites pursuing their own goals? We talk to mixed martial arts fighter and self-proclaimed anarchist, Jeff Monson.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Our guest today is Jeff Monson, American mixed-martial arts fighter and self-proclaimed anarchist. I want to start with the latest NSA leaks and the fact that everyone found out US was spying on everybody, including their closest allies like Germany, France – 35 countries altogether. What do you think they were looking for there?

Jeff Monson: I think, as much as a general citizen of the US is informed, why wouldn’t the US spy on everyone? It’s a power circle, it’s about economics, where Germany is going to put their money, whether companies are going here or companies are going there. I don’t think it’s about military, like how we have Cold-War thinking – ”they’re going to bomb us or we’re going to bomb them, or where they are putting their submarines.” I think it’s more of economics that is involved into spying.

SS: What happened right after the leaks is that the countries that were spied on came on and said “It’s outrageous” – but that’s about it. Do you think they should do something more, not just say “it’s outrageous” about them being spied on?

JM: I think they are spying as well, I’m not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, I just think these countries are constantly vying for power in certain regions, and they may call the US their friend and economically they all are friends and trading powers, but if you’re looking for an advantage you’re going to take any advantage you can get when you are in the world of capitalism and trying to support your companies.

SS: So you think all sides are being kind of sly?

JM: Yes, of course.

SS:I grew up in America. I think it’s a great country, but do you believe America is exceptional. Do you believe in American exceptionalism in a sense that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants to whoever it wants?

JM: That’s a very good question. I believe that before now, if you talked about American exceptionalism, people in America would say “No no, we’re not like this, we’re out for freedom and democracy and we have to be involved in certain wars or have military presence in certain areas, because we’re looking out for the world as a whole, not just America.” But now the climate has changed and to say - especially on the Republican side of the sphere… If you don’t say you accept American exceptionalism it is seen as down thing and they are actually criticizing Obama for not having American exceptionalism.

SS: But it was actually President Obama that said this in his speech, and he spoke about American exceptionalism, that where I got it from…

JM: Well, they are criticizing him for not being American enough and not looking out for American interests enough, and thinking globally. Especially Republicans, though not to just bash on them, because, this is kind of universal thing in the US now is that we have this, you know, ‘going back to the 1800s manifest destiny idea’. But now it’s not just North America, it’s the world. Not only do we have to police the world, but…I just saw, I think we have military bases, some sort of bases in a 135 out of 190 UN-registered countries. That’s crazy! Most of these countries are of course our friends, at least economically, so why do we need so many bases worldwide? We’re empire and to say we’re not is not true.

SS: So you’re saying Republicans are keener on emphasizing American exceptionalism and they actually blame Obama for not being American enough. What do you think? Is he American enough?

JM: I believe that to be an American …we have this pride, not just a nationalistic pride, but a worldwide pride. The United States, we are not just a world power, we are THE world power, and what we say goes religiously, economically, morally. We believe that we’re correct and that the world should abide by kind of the rules and standards that we set.

SS: But do you believe the world actually needs a role model – someone who can police it in some sort, or should everyone do their own thing?

JM: My Mom used to say: If you talk the talk you’ve got to walk the walk. Everything that we say, we don’t do. We have an illegal base in Guantanamo; the UN said “don’t invade Iraq” – we invaded Iraq anyway. We do what we want to do, and that’s where American exceptionalism comes into foul play. Is that what we are going to do? The things that make the US better, or make our corporations in a better situation in the world economy, that’s just the way it is. And if that happens to agree with other countries, that’s just icing on the cake. But if it doesn’t, it’s not going to stop us from doing that.

SS: In a recent Washington shutdown, you actually insinuated in your Twitter, you said “I hope people will realize that they don’t need to be governed, they don’t need governments.” What do you make of all this Congress drama?

JM: It’s one more ploy by the Republicans to stop Obamacare. They tried state by state stopping it, they went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled it, it was a version of a tax so the government had a way to tax people, so it was legal. This was the last-gasp effort for the Republicans to stop Obamacare, saying “Hey, if you do this, if you follow our little rule here, then we will allowed the budget to be passed, but if you don’t change Obamacare, then we’re going to stop it.” But because it’s good for the American people…

SS: I understand that you actually advocate affordable healthcare as a basic need for every human being. Obamacare is about that – affordable healthcare, no? Do you like the whole concept of Obamacare?

JM: Obamacare has its good points and bad points. What it was originally intended for has been torn down and shredded, and cut-and-pasted. And what we have now is nothing what I envisioned for healthcare for everybody…

SS: But it’s better than nothing, no?

JM: Yes, it’s better than nothing, but unfortunately what you have is people businesses actually cut in – the hours of employees or changing benefits, or firing people totally so you don’t have to pay for healthcare. So it’s actually hurting people more that it’s been helping. Another thing is physically being required to have health insurance under the administration. The government telling you that “If you don’t have insurance we’re going to find you.” It’s illegal not to have insurance. That is taking away some civil liberties as well.

SS: Do you think that’s why America is so torn about Obamacare? Because ideally you would think that everyone would want to have affordable healthcare?

JM: It’s not really making it affordable. I know people that have to pay more in premiums and the actual amount of healthcare they are receiving is being cut under teaching positions that they have because of the new Obamacare being administered. I think it can be helpful in some way; the idea is great – universal healthcare. We’re the only industrialized country in the world without universal healthcare. The US, the richest country in the world. That doesn’t make any sense.

But they need to change it to something like the VA [Veterans Affairs], where taxes go in, like what they do for the military – you get healthcare and we provide this services, but it’s a non-profit. When you have a for-profit system trying to make money off you being sick – this doesn’t make sense. The sicker you are and the least amount of services they provide to you, the more money they make. But you’re talking about your healthcare, your health, your well-being, and they are trying to provide you with the least amount of services they can and charge you as much as they can for these services – that doesn’t make sense.

SS: I want to talk a little bit about your views in the global sense, because I know that you’re a self-proclaimed anarchist, like we said in the beginning, but your type of anarchy is sort of justice for all. You don’t like governments, you believe that people should govern themselves, but who’d be providing the justice?

JM: People can provide their own justice. People living in groups and communes and togetherness. If you want to be a part of society, there is no requirement to be a part of society other than participating. If you want to participate, then you need to work, you need to abide by the rules that we as a whole agree on: “Hey, we can’t go murder each other, we can’t go taking from each other.” But look at crimes – they estimate over 90 percent of crimes are economically-related anyway, so imagine a society where you take away over 90 percent of the crimes or the need for these crimes. That I can live with, having to make some alterations or changes in order to live with other people, knowing that most of the crimes have been taken away and we’re living together.

SS: When you call it economic crime - in prehistoric times they would be like crimes for survival, fight for survival. They didn’t have money then, but they were fighting for food or to survive. So human nature hasn’t changed – you can take the economic crimes away, but for someone to be actually self-governed it would take a lot of discipline and responsibility. Do you really believe that human beings are ready for that? Do you actually have a historic example where humans were able to govern themselves without a leader?

JM: Midwest Native Americans. They had chiefs, but there was no written law, no government, they had these rules that they decided among themselves, they were really unset and unwritten rules, and to live in their society you followed these rules. The shame you would feel by disrespecting one of rules or someone else’s society was enough to govern their own people. Right now – you’ve been talking about prehistoric times – the most important social instinct we have is working together, because if you tried to take meat for yourself, or say “Hey, I’m going to take this,” or “I’m going to do my own thing, forget about you guys,” you’re going to die in a day or two, because you needed other people in your group to co-op, to watch out for other animals, or other people, or help your hunt. You couldn’t do that on your own. So that cohesiveness, that socialism so-to-speak – I think it’s a stronger instinct than individual greed that many people say.

SS: Socialism – yes, but socialists have the leader. What I’m saying is that it does seem a bit utopian, taken our times of technology and internet, and the amount of opportunities and options that human beings are being offered, that they would actually go back like the Indians and self-govern themselves, because each individual wants something more, something different, so it would be so much more harder for people to self-govern themselves.

JM: Let’s go back to that quote – “Show these people that they need us.” This is the quote from ‘V for Vendetta, when everyone was going crazy and the leader said “Show…” So they talk on the news about all these crises, all the stuff that people need governments otherwise the world’s going to go crazy. But we do all the work. We build the roads, we teach our children, we work in the hospitals, and we do all the physical labor. They just sit there, and say “Do this, do this,” as they collect the money or work with the banks, charging us interest and keeping us in debt.

We do govern ourselves in a sense, we do all the work, and we just are meant to believe that we need them in order to survive, but if they disappear… there of course will be some change of management but you have to change the economic climate, of course, if we’re in a capitalistic world where we’re fighting each other for the basics of live, of course there will be need for someone looking over and saying “You need to do this and you need to do this.” But if you take away capitalism, there’s going to be more freedom for people.

Right now I think it’s not freedom working 40,50,60 hours a week, trying to make ends meet, trying to pay off the bank, trying to pay off the loan, trying to survive, because you’re working for someone else. I think the freedom is choosing what you want to do for live, working this job, having free time with your kids, having a free time for yourself. I’m lucky in what I do, I get more free time and I get to fight, and I get time to spend with my family, but I’m still working for somebody and I know this, they are making profit of me and I feel for these people that are really in a bad situation.

SS: So you’re saying you don’t like conspiracies and then you’re saying that governments are actually governed by corporations – that’s a conspiracy theory by itself…

JM: I really don’t believe so, because the banks really own the US. The Federal Reserve, which is a misnomer because it has nothing to do with ‘Federal’. It’s an institution of private banks owned by elite individuals who loan money to the US for all the federal spending that we do, and we have to pay that back, the citizens have to pay that back with interest. If you took all the American money and put it in a big warehouse, it would only count for 4 or 5 percent of all the American money that exists, because if they loan a billion dollars to the government, then it has to repay that with interest. But where does that interest come from? It doesn’t exist, it’s just a theory.

SS: Wasn’t it always like that? It’s not like it just happened overnight, I mean, even couple centuries ago, obviously governments were financed or lobbied by rich people…

JM: In 1913, after a lot of bank closures and an economic crisis in the US, the Federal Reserve Act was formed and the US has been in prison ever since – we would always be in debt. There’s no way, if we pay back everything we owe, with all our money and resources that we have, we would still be 95-96 percent owing what we still owe right now in debt and it will always be that way unless we change the system.

SS: Talking about debt – the fear of what will happen to the US debt actually holds countries around the world hostage, because they are so heavily dependent on the US currency, on the US dollar. Do you think there could be some sort of opposition to that, to the debt ceiling being raised all the time?

JM: Well, of course, what happens in the US on Wall Street or with our corporations affects the world economy, and vibrates worldwide, but it’s really controlled by the corporations and the banks…

SS: So what can other countries do about that, can they resist the debt ceiling somehow?

JM: Like I said, the US is an empire. We have some trade or some tariffs enacted upon them, or some sort of our corporations going into the countries and vice-versa, we have a free exchange of economic ideals. And until the system is changed, there’s always going to be conflict. People talk about rise and fall of money, about how the currency’s going and or an echoing of the recession now, or how we’re in other recession now, it’s something that…everything will be under control, we just got to ride the wave. But the wave will never be smooth under capitalism, and people need to realize this.

SS: You talk about change of system and, I guess, in way, about beating the corporations. But you are a martial arts fighter – you of all people know what it takes to defeat someone, you need to be equally strong. So if governments are owned by the corporations, obviously the governments can’t defeat the corporations? So who can? Who could stand up to the corporations?

JM: Well, the government is in with the corporations, so they definitely don’t want to overcome now…

SS: So who can actually stand up?

JM: The people. It would take an enormous amount of education, and the internet has actually been fantastic in this sense; look at some of situations we’ve had in Libya or in Egypt – that was really made possible by the internet and people being on the cell phones, and that was even with Occupy Wall Street. So people are becoming more knowledgeable, and they are realizing that they connect with other people, so a businessman from Manhattan is realizing “You know, I have something in common with this farmer in Kansas,” and they can connect see each other’s social context.

It would take an enormous amount of education, but the people could shut this down in one day. If there was a world general strike, the corporations and the banks would be at the mercy of the people, the 99.9 percent of the people, those who do all the labor.

SS: Do you really believe that could happen?

JM: That would take, like I’ve said, an enormous amount of effort. Will that happen in my lifetime? I can only hope. But that’s why we’re talking now and that’s why we’re educating.

SS: Tell me about education and internet access – I had a guest recently on Sophie&Co and he said that the American nation is the best-entertained nation, but the least-educated, the least-informed, nevertheless. Why is that? Is that because of the media, or the people can’t be bothered, or they’re too lazy to know more?

JM: Whoever said this, he had a good point, but they go hand in hand. When you’re entertained by watching – I’m guilty of this as well, when I’m watching football game on TV, I’m not learning about my own situation, like “Why I can’t pay the rent this month” or “Why I can’t do this” or fighting some injustice. We have all these TV reality shows about what the Kardashians are doing, some crazy this, crazy that, and we’re entertained. They like that. Not only the media likes that, the government likes that, the banks like that, because it’s hard to protest when you don’t realize what’s going on, and you’re kind of happy just watching your show and relaxing.

SS: I’m going to read out your quote from Twitter – “We tolerate & often empower those who exploit, subjugate, coerce, oppress, & enslave us yet look upon those asking for a handout in disdain”. Have you thought about human nature? Why is that in that way?

JM: I think, again, that is the culture that we have, when we see someone on the side of the street asking for a dollar or something to get by, to get a piece of bread or something like that, we immediately think, “Well they aren’tworking” or “They are lazy.”

SS: Are you talking about the American culture in particular, because I don’t think every country around world is the same thing…?

JM: I think this is American culture, specifically, we’re talking about the American dream. If you work hard in America you can be the president, you can be a superstar or you can be an owner of the company. You just have to work hard and if you don’t then you’re on the side of the street asking for bread, and people don’t look at you and turn away. But if you work hard, you can have these things. That’s not true.

They did a recent study on industrialized countries and the US was number 16 in social mobility. So the American dream that if you just fight for what you want and work hard enough then you can achieve it – that’s not true. If you grow up in the inner city and you don’t have the resources and can’t get an education when you grow up you’re not prepared for the world, you’re in disadvantage. So no matter how hard you work, if you don’t have these tools and help growing up, you’ll never be able to achieve what you want.

SS: You - because of your profession, you travel a lot around the world - have you noticed how America’s image has changed throughout maybe the past two or three years, in light of Syria, in light of Libya, in light of NSA leaks, have you noticed a shift in this image?

JM: I think under Bush we had a really bad view in the world, and now I think this view has softened a little bit, and people generally think of the US as kind of bloated and lazy, and kind of ‘get what we want’ and the entertainment industrial capital of the world.

SS: But Libya, Syria and NSA leaks – they’ve really happened under Obama.

JM: Yeah, but I think now, under Obama, people think that we’re spying on the world, but we’re not so – even though it’s not true – as militaristic and cutthroat as we once were under Bush, invading countries, we’re talking about when Bush said “We’re going to invade you, because it’s the right thing to do so, and God help us do the right thing and we’re going to do it, whether you like or not.” And under Obama “Eh, we’re going to spy and send some drones here and makes some accidental killings – sorry about that..”

SS: Yes, you could actually see the reaction around Bush – I mean, a lot of people did dislike him, but when he said “We have to invade,” he had no doubt on his face, and everyone was like “OK, let’s do this.” And then, when President Obama is like, “Well, we probably have to bomb Syria,” he did have doubt on his face. So soon enough you have Britain who backs out first and then everyone is like, “No, we shouldn’t do it.” You could just read the doubt on his face, as he was saying that – “America should bomb Syria.”

JM: I actually think Obama has less support among leaders - if we refer to our allies – then I think Obama has less support than Bush did because of those reasons. But support among masses of people? Obama doesn’t have any more support or less support among them, I think it’s just different. They are seeing maybe some weaknesses and kind of ‘dictatorship’ or what you’re going to call it, but in the leadership that he’s showing there seems none.

SS: I know that you love Russia, and I wonder why, because Russia – as great as it is, and I live in this country – has its own bunch of problems with whole scores of issues. Why do you love it so much?

JM: I have a fascination with Russia, and the people. This is where the first modern social revolution took place in 1917. Even Marx didn’t predict it was going to be in Russia, he thought it was a backward Russia, “How’s that going to happen there, it’s going to be in Europe,” in industrialized countries, so it was a great event, and we’ve got a lot of great anarchists that have come from Russia.

SS: So you love Russia because of the great anarchists?

JM: Well that point, but [also] people here treated me very well.You know, when you have a grown man coming off the street, man, and hugging you, and like, you can feel the emotion…

SS: Is that why you want to be a Russian citizen, because I know you’re in the process of getting Russian citizenship?

JM: That’s some of it, and I don’t think you’re the citizen of the country just because you were born in it. I was born in the US, there’s no doubt, but I don’t feel that it was my home, that’s not where my heart is.

SS: Do you not love your country?

JM: What is a country? A country is a piece of land and people. There’s definitely people in the US that I love, there’s a lot of great people there, but I don’t adhere by the governments or the administration or the imperialism at all, and I’m ashamed to say when I travel that I’m a US citizen, because it has so many connotations that go along with that and I don’t agree with what our government is doing, so no, I’m not proud to be US citizen.