USuncutMN says: Tax the corporations! Tax the rich! Stop the cuts, fight for social justice for all. Standing in solidarity with http://www.usuncut.org/ and other Uncutters worldwide. FIGHT for a Foreclosure Moratorium! Foreclosure = homelessness. Resist the American Legislative Exchange Council, Grover Norquist and Citizen's United. #Austerity for the wheeler dealers, NOT the people.



We Are The 99% event

USuncutMN supports #occupyWallStreet, #occupyDC, the XL Pipeline resistance Yes, We, the People, are going to put democracy in all its forms up front and center. Open mic, diversity, nonviolent tactics .. Social media, economic democracy, repeal Citizen's United, single-payer healthcare, State Bank, Operation Feed the Homeless, anti-racism, homophobia, sexISM, war budgetting, lack of transparency, et al. Once we identify who we are and what we've lost, We can move forward.



Please sign and SHARE

Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Finding Freedom in Handcuffs




Posted on Nov 7, 2011
AP / Bebeto Matthews

Police arrest Occupy Wall Street protesters as they staged a sit-down at Goldman Sachs headquarters on Thursday in New York.

Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, an activist, an author and a member of a reporting team that won a 2002 Pulitzer Prize, wrote this article after he was released from custody following his arrest last Thursday. He and about 15 other participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement were detained as they protested outside the global headquarters of Goldman Sachs in lower Manhattan.
 

Faces appeared to me moments before the New York City police arrested us Thursday in front of Goldman Sachs. They were not the faces of the smug Goldman Sachs employees, who peered at us through the revolving glass doors and lobby windows, a pathetic collection of middle-aged fraternity and sorority members. They were not the faces of the blue-uniformed police with their dangling cords of white and black plastic handcuffs, or the thuggish Goldman Sachs security personnel, whose buzz cuts and dead eyes reminded me of the East German secret police, the Stasi. They were not the faces of the demonstrators around me, the ones with massive student debts and no jobs, the ones whose broken dreams weigh them down like a cross, the ones whose anger and betrayal triggered the street demonstrations and occupations for justice. They were not the faces of the onlookers—the construction workers, who seemed cheered by the march on Goldman Sachs, or the suited businessmen who did not. They were faraway faces. They were the faces of children dying. They were tiny, confused, bewildered faces I had seen in the southern Sudan, Gaza and the slums of Brazzaville, Nairobi, Cairo and Delhi and the wars I covered. They were faces with large, glassy eyes, above bloated bellies. They were the small faces of children convulsed by the ravages of starvation and disease.


I carry these faces. They do not leave me. I look at my own children and cannot forget them, these other children who never had a chance. War brings with it a host of horrors, including famine, but the worst is always the human detritus that war and famine leave behind, the small, frail bodies whose tangled limbs and vacant eyes condemn us all. The wealthy and the powerful, the ones behind the glass at Goldman Sachs, laughed and snapped pictures of us as if we were a brief and odd lunchtime diversion from commodities trading, from hoarding and profit, from this collective sickness of money worship, as if we were creatures in a cage, which in fact we soon were.


A glass tower filled with people carefully selected for the polish and self-assurance that come with having been formed in institutions of privilege, whose primary attributes are a lack of consciousness, a penchant for deception and an incapacity for empathy or remorse. The curious onlookers behind the windows and we, arms locked in a circle on the concrete outside, did not speak the same language. Profit. Globalization. War. National security. These are the words they use to justify the snuffing out of tiny lives, acts of radical evil. Goldman Sachs’ commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. Those who trade it have, by buying up and hoarding commodities futures, doubled and tripled the costs of wheat, rice and corn. Hundreds of millions of poor across the globe are going hungry to feed this mania for profit. The technical jargon, learned in business schools and on trading floors, effectively masks the reality of what is happening—murder. These are words designed to make systems operate, even systems of death, with a cold neutrality. Peace, love and all sane affirmative speech in temples like Goldman Sachs are, as W.H. Auden understood, “soiled, profaned, debased to a horrid mechanical screech.”


We seemed to have lost, at least until the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement, not only all personal responsibility but all capacity for personal judgment. Corporate culture absolves all of responsibility. This is part of its appeal. It relieves all from moral choice. There is an unequivocal acceptance of ruling principles such as unregulated capitalism and globalization as a kind of natural law. The steady march of corporate capitalism requires a passive acceptance of new laws and demolished regulations, of bailouts in the trillions of dollars and the systematic looting of public funds, of lies and deceit. The corporate culture, epitomized by Goldman Sachs, has seeped into our classrooms, our newsrooms, our entertainment systems and our consciousness. This corporate culture has stripped us of the right to express ourselves outside of the narrowly accepted confines of the established political order. It has turned us into compliant consumers. We are forced to surrender our voice. These corporate machines, like fraternities and sororities, also haze new recruits in company rituals, force them to adopt an unrelenting cheerfulness, a childish optimism and obsequiousness to authority. These corporate rituals, bolstered by retreats and training seminars, by grueling days that sometimes end with initiates curled up under their desks to sleep, ensure that only the most morally supine remain. The strong and independent are weeded out early so only the unquestioning advance upward. Corporate culture serves a faceless system. It is, as Hannah Arendt writes, “the rule of nobody and for this very reason perhaps the least human and most cruel form of rulership.” 

Our political class, and its courtiers on the airwaves, insists that if we refuse to comply, if we step outside of the Democratic Party, if we rebel, we will make things worse. This game of accepting the lesser evil enables the steady erosion of justice and corporate plundering. It enables corporations to harvest the nation and finally the global economy, reconfiguring the world into neofeudalism, one of masters and serfs. This game goes on until there is hardly any action carried out by the power elite that is not a crime. It goes on until corporate predators, who long ago decided the nation and the planet were not worth salvaging, seize the last drops of wealth. It goes on until moral acts, such as calling for those inside the corporate headquarters of Goldman Sachs to be tried, see you jailed, and the crimes of financial fraud and perjury are upheld as lawful and rewarded by the courts, the U.S. Treasury and the Congress. And all this is done so a handful of rapacious, immoral plutocrats like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs who sucks down about $250,000 a day and who lied to the U.S. Congress as well as his investors and the public, can use their dirty money to retreat into their own Forbidden City or Versailles while their underlings, basking in the arrogance of power, snap amusing photos of the rabble outside their gates being hauled away by the police and company goons.

It is vital that the occupation movements direct attention away from their encampments and tent cities, beset with the usual problems of hastily formed open societies where no one is turned away. Attention must be directed through street protests, civil disobedience and occupations toward the institutions that are carrying out the assaults against the 99 percent. Banks, insurance companies, courts where families are being foreclosed from their homes, city offices that put these homes up for auction, schools, libraries and firehouses that are being closed, and corporations such as General Electric that funnel taxpayer dollars into useless weapons systems and do not pay taxes, as well as propaganda outlets such as the New York Post and its evil twin, Fox News, which have unleashed a vicious propaganda war against us, all need to be targeted, shut down and occupied. Goldman Sachs is the poster child of all that is wrong with global capitalism, but there are many other companies whose degradation and destruction of human life are no less egregious.

It is always the respectable classes, the polished Ivy League graduates, the prep school boys and girls who grew up in Greenwich, Conn., or Short Hills, N.J., who are the most susceptible to evil. To be intelligent, as many are at least in a narrow, analytical way, is morally neutral. These respectable citizens are inculcated in their elitist enclaves with “values” and “norms,” including pious acts of charity used to justify their privilege, and a belief in the innate goodness of American power. They are trained to pay deference to systems of authority. They are taught to believe in their own goodness, unable to see or comprehend—and are perhaps indifferent to—the cruelty inflicted on others by the exclusive systems they serve. And as norms mutate and change, as the world is steadily transformed by corporate forces into one of a small cabal of predators and a vast herd of human prey, these elites seamlessly replace one set of “values” with another. These elites obey the rules. They make the system work. And they are rewarded for this. In return, they do not question.

Those who resist—the doubters, outcasts, renegades, skeptics and rebels—rarely come from the elite. They ask different questions. They seek something else—a life of meaning. They have grasped Immanuel Kant’s dictum, “If justice perishes, human life on Earth has lost its meaning.” And in their search they come to the conclusion that, as Socrates said, it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. This conclusion is rational, yet cannot be rationally defended. It makes a leap into the moral, which is beyond rational thought. It refuses to place a monetary value on human life. It acknowledges human life, indeed all life, as sacred. And this is why, as Arendt points out, the only morally reliable people when the chips are down are not those who say “this is wrong,” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.”

“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,” Arendt writes. “For human beings, thinking of past matters means moving in the dimension of depth, striking roots and thus stabilizing ourselves, so as not to be swept away by whatever may occur—the Zeitgeist or History or simple temptation. The greatest evil is not radical, it has no roots, and because it has no roots it has no limitations, it can go to unthinkable extremes and sweep over the whole world.”

There are streaks in my lungs, traces of the tuberculosis that I picked up around hundreds of dying Sudanese during the famine I covered as a foreign correspondent. I was strong and privileged and fought off the disease. They were not and did not. The bodies, most of them children, were dumped into hastily dug mass graves. The scars I carry within me are the whispers of these dead. They are the faint marks of those who never had a chance to become men or women, to fall in love and have children of their own. I carried these scars to the doors of Goldman Sachs. I had returned to living. Those whose last breaths had marked my lungs had not. I placed myself at the feet of these commodity traders to call for justice because the dead, and those who are dying in slums and refugee camps across the planet, could not make this journey. I see their faces. They haunt me in the day and come to me in the dark. They force me to remember. They make me choose sides. As the metal handcuffs were fastened around my wrists I thought of them, as I often think of them, and I said to myself: “Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, I am free at last.”

Chris Hedges is a weekly Truthdig columnist and a fellow at The Nation Institute. His newest book is “The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.”

Saturday, August 20, 2011

The right has chosen its scapegoat – the single mum. And she will bleed

The right has chosen its scapegoat – the single mum. And she will bleed

The danger of the single woman and the threat she poses to civilisation is an ancient narrative
  • mother and child
    The facts about single mothers read nothing like the righteous narrative. Photograph: Kelly Redinger / Design Pics Inc
     
    The rightwing press and politicians have pondered the burning of Poundland and delivered their verdict. They have found the cause of chaos, and will punish the guilty for shaking the foundations of Footlocker. Who brought us here, to this terrible place? Single mothers, yah.
    The rhetoric is inspired by The Exorcist. In the Daily Mail Melanie Phillips wrote: "Most of these children come from lone-mother households … Successive generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these women have yet more children." This is a scene of sexuality depravity.
    Max Hastings, also in the Daily Mail, wrote: "They are essentially wild beasts … Their behaviour on the streets resembled that of the polar bear which attacked a Norwegian tourist camp." This one has bears.
    Never mind that Phillips has no idea what percentage of the rioting children were from single-parent households. Never mind that the only single mother Hastings is on record as meeting is Princess Diana – although, to be fair, he didn't like her, either.
    Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday, meanwhile, would like all benefits stopped for new unmarried mothers, although he does not say what should happen next in his utopia. This is the language of sadism; in fact, they all sound like Grand Inquisitors or Witchfinder Generals from Clapham. Hitchens is crazy, you may say, so remote in his Manichean universe that he deserves pity. But he has a lot of readers, and not all of them read him for comedy.
    The danger of the single woman and the threat she poses to civilisation is an ancient narrative. Four hundred years ago we burned such creatures; 50 years ago they were consigned to homes for unmarried mothers or mental institutions, and deprived of their children. So what we have today is slightly better, but of the same vindictive hue.
    The rhetoric can be subtle. The Sun wrote a piece about a very fat woman last week, and casually dropped the fact that she is a single mother into the second sentence. See the cause of her depravity and vast bulk! The phrase "single mother" is followed by a trail of associated words, from sexual immorality to council flat, by way of obesity, benefit scrounger, and fags. If she works, she doesn't love her children. If she doesn't, she is a drain on the state.
    It is time to smash some myths. I am the child of a single mother and I am not like a polar bear, even if Max Hastings is on deadline and so fell into the world's stupidest metaphor, like a polar bear hurtling into a crevasse. We must have some facts about single mothers, amid all this sub-biblical commentary.
    Only 3% of single mothers are teenagers, according to the charity Gingerbread. The average age of the single mother is 37, and the majority (55%) had their children within marriage. That poster girl for the End of Days, the sperm-bandit teenage mother in search of a council house, is not representative. She is a mere sliver of data, nearly an urban myth.
    Twenty-three per cent of British households with dependent children are single-parent households; only 8% of single parents are fathers. (Single fathers suffer nothing like the same social fate, although their practical problems are identical. In the playground, they are heroes.) There are 1.9 million single parents in Britain, caring for three million children. They have a disproportionate number of disabled children (34%) and a disproportionate number of disabilities and illnesses of their own (33%).
    They are also disproportionately poor. It is one of the most repulsive tendencies of humans to blame the poor for bringing hell to earth, but we do it. Some 46% of single-parent families are below the poverty line, compared with 24% of families with two parents.
    The single mother is no more work-shy than any other mother: 57% of single parents work, an increase of 12 percentage points since 1997, which explodes the rightwing lie that New Labour did nothing but harm. As soon as their children reach the age of 12, this figure rises to 71%, which is the also the national average for mothers in relationships. These are the facts. They read nothing like the righteous narrative. But the scapegoat has been chosen, and she will bleed.
    David Cameron said in 2010: "To that single mother struggling and working her heart out for her children we can now say: 'We're on your side; we'll help you work; we will bring that injustice to an end.'" Yet this government is punishing single mothers, while fantasising about tax breaks for women with wall-to-wall nannies. They have cut childcare tax credits and, according to a study commissioned by Gingerbread, a single parent of two children working full-time on the minimum wage and paying £300 a week or more for childcare will lose around £1,620 a year. That is 13% of their gross income, and makes nonsense of the government's rhetoric that it wants to help single parents into work.
    Without childcare provision, better jobs are closed to single mothers. Even so, the Welfare Reform Bill now going through parliament wants single mothers to look for work when their youngest child is five (it is now seven), or her benefits will be cut. Jobcentre Plus is supposed to ensure single parents are only sent for jobs during school hours, or nearby, but anecdotal evidence suggests this is not the case. Why? Perhaps the rhetoric is to blame.
    Then there is the cut in child benefit to higher-rate taxpayers, due to land in 2013. Two parents on £40,000 each will keep it. A single mother on £44,000 will lose it. To use the Child Support Agency (CSA) to chase fathers for unpaid maintenance will now cost £100 for working mothers; and if the CSA does collect on their behalf, it will take a cut of between 7% and 12%. We want an in-family solution, says the government. You could call that faith in the redemptive power of love. Or you could call it a tax on escaping an abusive relationship.
    The government says it wants a return to the stable nuclear family. The 1950s-style marriage was stable, yes indeed, principally because women could not leave it. Germaine Greer wrote: "The illusion of stable family life was built on the silence of suffering women, who lived on what their husbands thought fit to give them, did menial work for a pittance … and endured abuse silently because of their children." It seems we are headed there again, hurting real women in the cause of a bringing a brittle fantasy to life.
    Sometimes I ponder this sadism. Cameron is all Teflon and pouting now, but he was once a child who was sent to boarding school at seven. What did this do to his capacity for empathy? I asked a shrink about it once, and she said it would make you hyper-functional, but emotionally closed. That should have stayed his tragedy, but he went into politics and made it ours.
    I do not know why single mothers are singled out for judgment by the rest. I suspect it is, in the end, the remnants of an ancient misogyny, damning women for failing in that most basic role – making men happy – and seeking independence for themselves. A sane government would provide cheap childcare, of course, and force companies to offer jobs with flexible working hours. But they are not in the business of solutions. They want punishment.
    Suzanne Moore is away.