Gibson writes: "What we should do is continue to build our own evidence locker against the bankers, continue to announce their crimes to all who would hear, and keep risking arrest to get the truth out. Maybe we can finally turn the cops against the real bad guys."
Arrest the bankers. (photo: DeviantArt.com)
FBI Should Investigate Bankers, Not Protesters
01 January 13
Reader Supported News | Perspective
�
ecember 16th of 2012 marked the 239th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, when activists clad in Native American costumes protested a tax code that benefited a multinational corporation at the cost of taxpayers, and committed one of the biggest acts of property destruction in history by dumping the East India Tea Company's product into the Boston Harbor by the crateful. For nearly fifty years, the act was either shunned or ignored by the populace. But today, those activists' names are among the revered "founding fathers" of our country.
Yet, while we celebrate the radical activists behind the Boston Tea Party, today's activists protesting corporate greed and a rigged tax system are labeled "terrorists" by the federal government and investigated as such. This week CNN reported what most of us in the movement already knew and assumed - that the FBI had been closely monitoring the Occupy movement since its infancy and considered the movement's organizers a terrorist threat. And judging from a photo of my #S17 arrest in the CNN article's slideshow, it's safe to say I'm probably being closely monitored as well. Maybe they're reading this article. Maybe they'll at least learn something.
Since September 17, 2011, police have arrested at least 7,719 people affiliated with Occupy Wall Street. But since September of 2008, when banks, ratings agencies, corrupt regulators and complicit economists helped cause the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, not one banker or corrupt government official has been jailed. The fact that the federal government has used extensive resources to help coordinate law enforcement response to the Occupy movement is well-documented. The FBI's budget request for 2013 is $8.2 billion. Surely, with 34,000 employees and an impressive budget, the FBI could glean all the information they needed for the arrests of those who rooked families out of their homes to make excessive short-term profits. There's certainly no shortage of evidence that can be found for free with a simple Google search.
According to redacted FBI documents, federal agents had been warning the New York Stock Exchange of a coming "anarchist protest" since August of 2011, a month before the movement even began. Surely they also knew in advance that Moody's and Standard and Poor's were intentionally giving AAA ratings to worthless mortgage-backed securities that Goldman Sachs eagerly sold to state pension funds on the open market, then referred to as "shitty deals" in private emails with one another. If the FBI spent the same amount of time and resources on gathering evidence to use against corrupt bankers in court as they did on profiling Occupy Wall Street activists, we might not even be protesting right now.
It's offensive that our government, which was founded on revolutionary war against tyrannical government and protesting the multinational corporations they colluded with, puts nonviolent protesters in the same classification as terrorists. It's offensive that it is now considered criminal activity to peacefully protest economic inequality. But it's disgusting that our government is letting real terrorists and criminals get away while going after the very people trying to make things right.
It shouldn't shock anyone anymore to say that the United States is now a police state, or that walking on a sidewalk in New York City while protesting can end up with your head in between a cop's knee and a sidewalk, or that the I in FBI stands for Intimidation rather than Investigation. Hoping that President Obama will suddenly start caring about the rights of protesters in the United States or appoint a new Attorney General that will prioritize the protection of the First Amendment is na�ve and silly. But what we should do is continue to build our own evidence locker against the bankers, continue to announce their crimes to all who would hear, and keep risking arrest to get the truth out. Maybe we can finally turn the cops against the real bad guys.
Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Old Lyme, Connecticut. You can contact Carl at carl@rsnorg.org.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
We can hope that some action can be taken to oust Clarence Thomas, and to select a Supreme Court Justice with some intelligence and integrity.
We need to fight back on all of the attempts being made to restrict voting rights and to gerrymander honesty and fairness out of so many states. That is a real danger.
Murdoch is a bit different in that he is in the business of hiring those guys and managing the distraction. He will always hire a new cast as necessary, probably sooner than later, but he may keep his name in the back row. I don't expect charges against him to amount to much because so much of the media plays the role, in part, that he fills. He is replaceable too, but I expect to see his company around for a while.
Up the 99% we have nothing left to loose, we are broke now.
Where is the accountability to the people?
"Teacher! Teacher!" he cries -- "the schoolhouse be on fire!"
Teacher glares at the little boy over her glasses. "Johnny," she says. "Go to your desk and write 500 times, 'The choolhouse IS on fire.'"
Oh nooooooo! RUN! There are grammar Nazis on board!
As for the "clumsy, jerky sentence structure, that is simply your opinion.
Finally, perhaps all the negative votes were given because all of the criticism was directed at the way the article was written and none of it was directed at the content of the article. I feel sure that those of us who gave negative votes did so on this basis.
Yes, proofreading is a valuable tool in journalism, especially if the errors get in the way of comprehension. As it turns out, the content of this piece is so riveting that I had no trouble following the gist of it...no proofreader necessary here. I'm glowing from Boehlert's conclusion that these court jesters have self-destructed . Don't want nobody to rain on my parade right now.
As for this piece, I had no trouble reading & understanding it.
I'm not sure why you and ejf3 below are getting all the negatives, coffeewriter. You didn't comment at all on the content of the article, just on how poorly it is written. And you're absolutely right -- the typos and poor writing grated on me as I read the piece.
But the content is still there, and I do celebrate the fact that these egomaniacs are beginning to reap what they have sown. The faster they all self-destruct, the better!
Critizing grammar and spelling is beside the point. whether or not you agree is.If you can make out what someone says, then I wish that you don't be so quick to point out every little error.
As far as on the topic, these guys only have themselves to blame.
And it's Fluke (pronounced Flook).
You can say that you don't support Limbaugh but your post tells me differently.
And as to activism, what on earth is wrong with being an activist?
Ms. Fluke's age in all I have read has been 30. Thanks for this clarification.
It will take far longer, however, for the damaged wrought by decades of attacks on civil society carried out by these entities to heal. With a significant segment of the populace now believing they can ignore any idea by accusing its possessor of "drinking the Kool-Aid", mocking his/her name, or saying the likes of "only a stupid person would think that....", some serious changes are in order. What we need now more than anything else is a short course in proper behavior. After all, if we can't talk to each other, we will never get far as a nation. And if our nation is to be represented by the sort of thinking one commonly finds offered from a barstool, well....that hasn't taken us far either, has it?
There have always been those who see no need to mature beyond the level of the playground. But just now, it's time for them to go back there and let grown-ups be in charge.
Then he went national. At first I thought "good for him," but the first time I heard his national broadcast I realized something had changed. Maybe it was me.
Limbaugh was no longer the occasionally-am using "showman," but had become increasingly vitriolic in his commentary. I've never listened to him since.
That was approximately 1988 or '89. Long time fad.
What does Holder say about Limbaugh, etc.? Should not Limbaugh be watching the skies? (Should not we all?)
We got slopes so slippery here it's to even stand up.
What do you mean by "a long history of activism?" I thought we were always encouraged to participate in the political process. Please don't use this as a code word to indicate that someone is doing evil. Anyone who attempts to have influence in the political process is an activist, including Rush Limbaugh and Chris Hedges.
bullshit always eventually walks.
You must mean the band, Rush.
"At that point in my life I was blissfully ignorant of the existence of Mr. Limbaugh.
The greatest what? liar, blowhard, fake, misogynist, fool, slave to the rightwing extremists?
Greatest asshole, I'd say.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-imus-on-rush-limbaugh-hes-a-fat-gutless-pill-popping-loser/
I think Don Imus came away from his crisis a better man. If he is not at peace with himself, he should be. I think the opposite is true for Limbaugh.
p.s. Jabba the Fuck. Very good!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/don-imus-rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1321016.html
There is much worse writing around.
What is most interesting is that they think Beck tells the truth. Beck, of course, repeats this all the time; so they are programmed to hear his nonsense and believe that it's true.
The war against lies and smears will not end any time soon, if ever. It's going to require that liberals and progressives remain vigilant about these right-wing blowhards and, when necessary (in church, online, on the street, etc.) take a stand. Fight back against these liars. I recently called out an old man in a restaurant for spewing Beckerisms about Obama at his table (next to mine).
Their followers suffer from the same pathology of self-loathing and hatred for any person or organization that stands for human decency, common sense and compassionate empathy for others.
From what has been heard from those who support these men, it is clear that most of them are beyond any attempt to save them from themselves. They are just as self-destructiv e as their icons. All folks of good will and sane impulses can do is try to limit the damage to society these people are capable of. How is that done? By remaining sober and constant examples of honesty, decency and justice and by exposing fully the sound and fury that signifies nothing but lunacy on the loose.
This is part of a tidal shift in political thinking. These same guys would have, and did, get away with other displays of poor taste or criminal behavior before, that were at least as bad. The difference is that the public levels of tolerance for their garbage has gone down hill in the past few years.
They didn't suddenly step over an imaginary line. They're just starting to realize the affects of the demographic tide that's going against them. This is only the beginning. In 10 years right-wing hate media will be taken about as seriously as the National Enquirer is today, and probably less seriously than the Onion.
In the meantime, you can expect the repug party to become less conservative or go the way of the Whigs.
Rush is not his own worst enemy while people like me are around.. LOL
They entertain the least common denominator.The y know their audience like no one else. These extremists are well aware of the risks they take with the truth (when did accuracy ever matter to them or their listeners?)
The right wing populists are esentially apolitical.Apol itical because their beliefs and philosophies are not a result of reality, therefore, making them mere followers of a cult of media personality.
Rush is a fool but he is nobody's fool with regards to his political power and ability to make a ton of cash. Never count this fellow (and his like) out. They will all rebound-too many admirers of this "fast food" media empire. Non-thinkers rejoice!
Zen koan
The whole basis of conservative philosophy, if you can call it a philosphy, is a belief that human beings are essentially nasty, selfish rotters who will usually do the wrong thing, if left to their own devices. There are certainly enough people like that to make it possible to sell the conservative line. Interesting thing is that many of the nastiest and most indecent folks among us are the same characters selling that way of thinking. No concidence there, I guess.
Their solution to most problems is to fall back on what they consider stern srength in the form of tough talking militarists and fiscal Scrooges. Any resemblance between such individuals and the Old Testament Jehovah--who is almost always pissed at his human creation--is completely UN-coincidental .
So, Limbaugh is not stupid at all. He knows how to massage the minds of those mired in negativity and loss of faith in human nature. Hey, pandering pays!