Post by Sunday at midnight.
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Article demonstrating the terms we learned last week about SMOs, SMIs, weak links, and novel targets, etc.
3. This is a nice example of high grievance that was only mobilized by SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS, instead of just random people in the streets. It is about Americans protesting in front of the White House against the 700 billion bailout of bad debts of multi-billionaire bankers without any help for common Americans at all.
Note the issue of how a social movement industry was assembled from preexisting social movement organizations from previous mobilizations on different targets. They reformed in a novel way, around a novel topic, instead of forming a novel organization to handle the mobilization. Note how unpredictable were the transmission of information about the mobilization from one organizational member to another. In that, note the 'weak links' carrying the message about the mobilization until it hit the right groups willing to turn sympathy into action and avoid erosion. We talked about all the words in boldface this last week. Then it was contentious enough to turn into a media frame as well, which got more publicity.
--------------------------------
Protesters against bailout plan picket White House
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday September 26, 2008
Chanting "Main Street first" and carrying signs and colorful umbrellas, a few hundred protesters marched in front of the White House on a rainy Thursday afternoon to demand the rejection of Treasury Secretary Paulson's Wall Street bailout plan.
The demonstration was one of hundreds organized by TrueMajority.com and UsAction and was timed to coincide with a meeting between President Bush and Congressional leaders.
According to the Boston Globe, "A coalition (or SMI) of [pre-existing SMO] groups calling itself the Main Street Coalition marched from the Treasury Department down Pennsylvania Avenue, chanting 'No deal for Wall Street, New Deal for Main Street' and handing out copies of a 'Taxpayer Invoice' for $700 billion."
Skip Roberts of the Service Employees International Union told the Globe, "Something has to be done, but this is going to be put on the backs of the average taxpayer when they had nothing to do with it."
According to Wired.com, the idea for the protests began with New York City journalist Arun Gupta, who last Sunday sent out an email urging a demonstration on Wall Street. The email quickly raced around the Net, author Naomi Klein posted it on her website, and "TrueMajority, a 700,000 member activist group headed by Ben and Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen, sent out an action alert the next day."
"This was a convergence of everyone having the same thought at the same time," TrueMajority's online director Matt Holland told Wired.com. The protests are planned to continue into next week.
This video is from ABCNews.com, broadcast September 25, 2008.
---
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Protesters_march_againt_White_House_bailout_0926.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
1.Chenyang Wu
2.'Habitual Demonstrators' to Be Blacklisted
3:
I'd never expected that Korean people could be so extroverted as a whole before I came here that the goverment has to do something to keep them down. For example, in this case the goverment is going to punish the "habitual demonstrators" more harshly. To be honest, I don't like the guys always ready to boycott something or to set out a demonstration. But on the other hand, it shows that the country has offered enough freedom to its people, and the people themselves are dynamic having a high expectation for their life. I hope China went on this way.
---------------------------
By Kang Shin-who
Staff Reporter
The Ministry of Justice and prosecutors are considering drawing up a blacklist of ``habitual demonstrators’’ to punish them more harshly.
``Among the candidates to make the list are those candlelight rally protestors who were already punished for leading violent rallies,’’ a prosecutor said. ``There are even some professional demonstrators who wielded violence at the rallies. The list is to counter these violent demonstrators.’’
However, it is unclear whether they will carry through with the move as it could be seen as an infringement upon the freedom of privacy.
Prosecutors are checking the punishment records of some 1,600 people who are now under investigation in relation to recent rallies against U.S. beef imports.
Meanwhile, the prosecution has decided to impose most of the 1,600 candlelight protestors with a fine of over 500,000 won ($430) each.
---------http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/09/117_31725.html
1. Hojin Yoo
2. NGO's transformation
3. I remembered what we discussed in the last class, that SMO's sometimes change their target because sometimes external organizations induce them to do so by giving support. In this article, the NGO in Thailand changed their slogan because of the
authoritarian government.
--------------------------------
A briefing on the continuing crisis in Thailand online only
by Giles Ji Ungpakorn
For the past two or more years – and especially since the September 2006 coup – Thai society has been hypnotised into forgetting about its real social and political issues. Instead, the whole of society – and, most tragically, the social movements – have been entranced by a fight between two factions of the Thai ruling class.
On the one side is the Thai government, the ruling People's Power Party, the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his former party Thai Rak Thai.
On the opposing side is a loose collection of authoritarian royalists, comprising the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), elements of the military and judiciary that supported the coup and the Democrat Party. The authoritarian royalists are not a unified body – but they share a collective interest in wiping out Thaksin's party.
The two sides are mirror images of each other. Both are firmly in the camp of the Thai capitalist elite. Both are nationalistic and prepared to abuse human rights.
Thaksin's former government and current prime minister Samak Sundaravej's government support extrajudicial killings and a hardline murderous position against the insurgency in the south of Thailand.
But the opposing side also cares little about such killings. It counts General Panlop Pinmanee, who oversaw a massacre at Krue Sae mosque in 2004, among its leadership.
Corruption
Both factions are associated with people who have a record of corruption. It is common knowledge that all Thai politicians are engaged in corrupt practices, whether legal or illegal.
The military also has a long record of corruption and the junta that oversaw the illegal coup in 2006 is no exception. After the coup, they appointed themselves to boards of state enterprises and forced through increased military spending.
Yet the courts have clearly been used to single out Thaksin's faction on charges of corruption and "abuse of power". And while Thaksin was still in power, the courts bent to his wishes.
So there is no real justice in Thailand. The judiciary are not accountable to the electorate and always support the rich and powerful. In labour courts they always rule against trade unions. There is no jury in Thailand.
Political strategies
There are some differences between the two factions. Thaksin's side is committed to a strategy of winning power by elections, parliamentary democracy and money politics. The PAD and their friends favour of military coups, reducing the number of elected MPs and increasing the power of unelected bureaucrats and the army.
The justification for this is the belief that the poor majority in the country are too stupid to be given the vote. The PAD faction are also fanatical royalists. They want a new coup and were happy to whip up hatred of neighbouring Cambodia and to risk a war over an ancient Khmer temple.
The PAD strategy, as outlined by one of its leading figures Pipop Thongchai, is to create enough political chaos that institutions and parties are destroyed, with a "new order" arising from the ashes. Needless to say, this new order will not be democratic, nor will it have any commitment to social justice or equality.
Economic policies
In terms of economic policy, the Thaksin faction wants to use a "dual track" strategy that mixes neoliberalism with elements of grassroots Keynesianism. They say the poor must not be left out and they do have a record of implementing pro-poor policies such as a recent heathcare scheme. However, they are not remotely socialist and are opposed to taxing the rich or building a welfare state.
The PAD and the other royalists, in contrast, are hardline monetarists. They propose interest rate hikes, cutting down spending on the poor and squeezing wages.
Bhumibol Adulyadej, the king of Thailand, is one of the richest monarchs in the world. He supports this economic policy and has also advocated a "sufficiency economy" where everyone curbs their spending according to their means. That means income redistribution is ruled out – which is why the poor have consistently voted for the Thaksin faction.
Social movements
Compounding this situation is the total disarray of the social movements, NGO networks and trade unions in Thailand. After the collapse of the Communist Party in the mid 1980s, the new slogan of the people's movements was "the answer is in the villages".
This was an NGO strategy to promote to rural development along single-issue lines. The slogan also reflected a respect for villagers which contrasted greatly with the attitude of the government.
Now the slogan of those people's movement networks that are supporting the PAD has changed to "the villagers are stupid and don't deserve the vote!" or "the answer is with the military, courts and the king".
Sections of the NGO Coordinating Committee, some Thai staff in Focus on the Global South, HIV+ networks, Friends of the People and some farmer groups have all lined up to support the PAD and the demand to decrease democracy.
The railway workers' union and the Thai Airways union have also shown their support for PAD. The rail union leaders have never campaigned for hundreds of rail employees who have been on temporary contracts without welfare for decades. The Thai Airways union has ignored military corruption in the airline and in the airports authority.
Both unions have turned their backs on serious attacks on trade unions in the private sector and are only prepared to take action when people in high places give them the green light.
Activists pulled
Other activists who cannot stand the PAD have allowed themselves to be pulled into supporting the government. This is just as bad as those supporting the PAD. Some have even cheered when the police tried to break up PAD protests.
The lack of independent class politics in the Thai people's movement is a result of years of rejecting any kind of overall politics or political organisation. This stems anarchist ideas that became popular after the collapse of the Communist Party as a reaction to the party's Stalinist authoritarianism.
The problem is also a result of the "lobby politics" of the NGOs. Neither strategy leads to building an independent position for the trade unions and social movements. They reject "representative democracy" – but have no concrete democratic proposals to put in its place.
Build independence
Even today, at this late hour, we can still build political independence. We must campaign for more democracy and more control of institutions from below.
We must advocate a root and branch reform of the justice system, a reduction in the role of the military and the building of a welfare state through cuts in the military budget and progressive taxation of the rich.
Yet there are still those who say that we must take sides in the current elite dispute and leave such reforms until later. The problem with that is that the dispute will not be settled quickly.
And even if it is settled, it will be on the terms of one or other elite grouping – and that will result in a smaller democratic space and less bargaining power for social movements.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn is based in Bankgkok and is a member of the Worker's Democracy socialist organisation in Thailand
--------------------
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15899
1. Kyung-Hee,Kang
2. "Ministers plan pulpit protest over endorsement law"
3. As shortly mentioned in last class, non-profit organizations are exempted from taxes and prohibited from participating in political endorsements in the US. Churches as well as NGOs come under this IRS rule. Protesters and their supporters claim that it's about freedom of expression. Well, it's been problematic recently that some Christians in America and here, Korea, tend to blur the separation of religion and state. In Korea religious institutions are tax-exempted but it is really not uncommon to see churches occupying political pulpits(praying for the president or demonizing leftwing) and little regulations about that, though I'm not sure about legal issues. Tensions concerned with radical Christians keep rising in the country. Also, tax has been a major issue in terms of collective behavior.Tax used to be a main reason for massive riots and fall of numerous dynasties and still is very important issue in state/individual relationship, though tax rejections are now mostly used as very individual protest.
--------------------------------
On Sunday, 33 ministers around the country plan to break the law, endorsing presidential candidates during their sermons despite IRS rules prohibiting such endorsements for tax-exempt non-profits.
Then they’ll mail their sermons to the IRS and wait for the taxman to arrive, hoping to force a legal fight over a 1954 federal ban on endorsements by nonprofits, including churches.
“These churches actually hope that the IRS will come after them, and that it will set up a chance for litigation in federal court,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, the Arizona-based group organizing the pulpit protests.
Before 1954, preachers were free to talk about candidates in the pulpit. Then Texas Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson spearheaded a measure to prevent nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns.
Under IRS regulations, non-profits are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
While some churches have brushed up against the line, only one church in New York lost its tax-exempt status after buying a newspaper advertisement urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Ohio State law professor Donald Tobin, who specializes in tax and campaign finance, says that if preachers want a tax break, they have to live by IRS rules.
“The Supreme Court has said that you are not entitled to a tax exemption,” he said. “What is interesting to me is that churches feel they have a right to the benefit no matter what they do.”
Other national church-state experts questioned the wisdom of the pulpit protests.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, advised churches to not protest.
“I defend churches when the IRS investigates them,” he said. But he would never advise a church to deliberately provoke the IRS.
J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said that tax exemption isn’t a right for church. Instead, he called it an act of legislative grace.
This weekend’s pulpit protest may do more harm than good, he said.
“In every church I know of, it would be like setting off a bomb shell in the sanctuary for the preacher to tell the congregants how to pull the lever in the voting booth,” Walker said.
---
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/NEWS07/80927043/1009
1. Graciëla Nooitgedagt
2. Native Hawaiians takeover palace in Honolulu
3. This story is about a social movement group of hawaiians protesting that advocated sovereignty. I feel that this story shows a good example of a well organized protest group, which made up rules for their protest and assigned a protest leader. There are much more organizations like this one in Hawaï and I guess that most are just waiting for the good opportunity to strike.
-----------------------------------
updated 8:55 p.m. ET April 30, 2008
HONOLULU - A Native Hawaiian group that advocates sovereignty locked the gates of a historic palace in downtown Honolulu on Wednesday, saying it would carry out the business of what it considers the legitimate government of the islands.
State deputy sheriffs weren't allowing anyone else to enter Iolani Palace grounds as unarmed security guards from the Hawaiian Kingdom Government group blocked all gates to the palace, which is adjacent to the state Capitol.
The group said it learned from Honolulu Police Chief Boisse Correa that arrest warrants were being prepared for the 60 or so protesters and would probably be served later in the day. Police have not confirmed that to The Associated Press.
Protest leaders said they were prepared to be arrested and would go peacefully.
Don't recognize Hawaii as state
Protest leader Mahealani Kahau said the group doesn't recognize Hawaii as a U.S. state. Supporters planned to keep the protest peaceful and if evicted would return later, she said.
The group is one of several Hawaiian sovereignty organizations in the islands, which became the 50th U.S. state in 1959.
The ornate Iolani Palace is operated as a museum. Hawaiian King Kalakaua built it in 1882, and it also served as the residence for his sister and successor, Queen Liliuokalani, the islands' last ruling monarch.
It was neglected after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and restored in the 1970s as a National Historic Landmark. It includes a gift shop and is open for school groups and paid tours.
"The Hawaiian Kingdom Government is here and it doesn't plan to leave. This is a continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom of 1892 to today," said Kahau, who was elected head of state of the group seven years ago.
The protesters aren't damaging anything in the palace grounds, Kahau said. Workers inside the palace itself had locked the doors and were not letting them inside.
"We will not resist, we won't fight, we won't be aggressive. But we'll be back for sure," Kahau said.
Protester vow to return
No matter what happened Wednesday, the protesters planned to return to the palace Thursday, she said.
State Sen. Kalani English — a Native Hawaiian and a Democrat from East Maui-Lanai-Molokai — came over from the Capitol to speak with some of the protesters, and had his staff take them food.
"This is the manifestation of the frustration of the Hawaiian people for the loss of sovereignty and land," English said.
"It is symbolic. This made a statement. It got the word out about the plight of the Hawaiian people," he said.
Richard Kinney, who described himself as an independent Hawaiian nationalist, said he went to the Capitol to show his support. He carried an upside-down Hawaii state flag, signaling distress.
"The sovereignty of these islands is inherent to the Hawaiian people, and we've never relinquished that," he said.
"Occupying any land, including Iolani Palace, is the beginning," Kinney said.
Kippen de Alba Chu, executive director of Iolani Palace, issued a statement that said the protesters delivered a written message to palace officials claiming the grounds as the seat of their government.
"While we respect the freedom of Hawaiian groups to hold an opinion on the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, we believe that blocking public access to Iolani Palace is wrong and certainly detrimental to our mission to share the palace and its history with our residents, our keiki (children) and our visitors," Chu said.
--------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394676/
1. Martine Ibsen
2. Green movement forgets its politics
3. I found this article rather good, because of the questions that are raised in it. It is about the global warming, the rising grievances among regular people, and why these millions of organisations that work toward ecological sustainability and social justice, aren’t able to force governments to take more action than they do. When reading the article it seems to me these organizations would have a more powerful voice if they worked together. So why aren’t they? It’s probably because of their diverged approaches and different meanings on how to save the world. But what would it take to get the regular mr. and mrs. “unsatisfied with the way the planet is being treated” to become active supporters, and make governments listening?
--------------------------------
Green movement forgets its politics
VIEWPOINT
Ann Pettifor
Organisations campaigning on climate change need to learn the lessons of the anti-slavery and anti-apartheid movements, says Ann Pettifor. By focusing on individuals rather than governments, initiatives such as the recent Energy Saving Day are bound to fail in their bid to reduce emissions, she argues.
Could the US civil rights movement be a model for climate campaigners?
Climate change is the issue of the day.
Scientists finally agree on the threat to the planet posed by rising temperatures. Books on the subject proliferate.
Campaigners, like those at Plane Stupid, do amazing things to bring it to public attention.
Big business frets too. The world's giant investment funds join green groups in demanding drastic action.
Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest - How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, writes that "there are over one - maybe even two - million organisations (worldwide) working toward ecological sustainability and social justice".
And yet... and yet... there is no real climate change movement. There is no organised effort leading society towards a legislative framework that would urgently drive down greenhouse gas emissions across the board, and begin to sequester carbon dioxide.
Not in the UK, or in the US, or internationally. The "movement" that Hawken refers to is, he notes, "atomised" and "largely ignored".
Green organisations... fail to highlight the need for the kind of change that can only be brought about by governmental action
Yet in September 2007, a public opinion survey from Yale University (in conjunction with Gallup) found that "nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years".
The authors noted that this was "a 20-percentage-point increase since 2004", representing "a sea change in public opinion... and a growing sense of urgency".
If there is a "growing sense of urgency", why isn't there a climate change movement in the US?
Low level lighting
The reason is that green organisations focus on individual ("change your lightbulbs") or community ("recycle, reuse, reduce, localise") action.
They fail to highlight the need for the kind of structural change that can only be brought about by governmental action.
Governments helpfully collude in this atomisation and fragmentation of action and reaction.
Throughout history, social movements have focused on the need for government action.
Campaigns against the Iraq invasion failed - should they have tried harder?
The anti-slavery movement sought to change laws that permitted slavery.
The suffragette movement only ensured votes for women once discriminatory laws had been displaced; the anti-apartheid movement was only successful once apartheid laws had been removed.
In the US, the black civil rights movement campaigned from 1947 until the introduction of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act to end discrimination in certain spheres.
Today, as the UK government's hesitancy in dealing with Northern Rock reveals, governmental action is unpopular and out of fashion.
Not just with big business and neo-liberal economists, but also with anarchists and many green campaigners. Minimal government is now ideologically dominant.
The failure of anti-war demonstrations to halt the Iraq war is often cited as evidence of the failure of governments to respond to such popular pressure.
However, as the civil rights movement demonstrated, a successful campaign does not stop at one defeat. It moves forward inexorably over time, in pursuit of its legislative goal.
Fair shares
The population at large instinctively understands that they alone, or even in community, cannot deal with the threat of climate change.
They are acutely aware that while individuals may take action, others may become "freeriders".
Parliaments fiddle while the planet burns, and individuals are pressured to take responsibility
They know a fair legislative framework is required to share the burden of adjusting to climate change equitably between rich and poor.
Burden-sharing has several dimensions; between those who live in Bangladesh and those who live in Zurich, those who drive 4x4s and those who cycle, those who take foreign holidays and those who do not.
In the UK, Ipsos Mori polled public attitudes to climate change in July 2007.
Seventy percent "strongly agreed" or "tended to agree" that "the government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour".
Green organisations in the UK support the government's very cautious climate change bill by lobbying for a stronger legal framework - but not much stronger.
The call by UK NGOs for 80% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 - now accepted by government - lacks ambition, and underestimates the urgency.
Furthermore, the call for action by 2050 is so distant that the government feels under no pressure.
Switching off
Growing scientific evidence of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, melting icecaps and the shrinking capacity of "sinks" to absorb emissions means we need bold, urgent action by government to drive down emissions to zero.
Britain's only Christian campaign dedicated exclusively to climate change, Operation Noah, pressures government to take much more radical action - to cut emissions by 90% by 2030, not 2050.
We may not have got it right, but we are trying to pressure government to act urgently, and to mobilise society in the way that Jubilee 2000 mobilised millions of people to cancel third world debt.
In other words, we are pressing for governmental action by a deadline.
E-Day: A good use of energy?
To succeed, climate change campaigns first need first to unite - at both national and international levels.
Secondly, they must unite behind a radical goal that requires structural change, regulation and enforcement that will urgently drive down emissions and sequester carbon dioxide.
Thirdly, they need to exercise leadership by mobilising society in a concerted way behind this goal. This will intensify pressure on politicians and governments.
It ain't easy, but it has been done before; witness the Jubilee 2000 global campaign.
As things stand, the movement remains disparate, atomised and marginalised.
This frees politicians to expand airports and increase road capacity.
Parliaments fiddle while the planet burns, and individuals are pressured to take responsibility for global climate change by "switching off at the wall".
And so, inevitably, the Titanic's deck chairs are rearranged - and energy use goes up, rather than down, on Energy Saving Day.
Ann Pettifor is executive director of Advocacy International and campaigns adviser to Operation Noah
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
--------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7385615.stm
Post a Comment