Content from a letter to Sarah #5

7/28/09
I have been meaning to finish this for awhile.  I also couldn't think of how to start it.  So, here is the final part of the initial life story I started out with.  I wrote this before a bunch of the other letters I sent.

After high school... I was lucky enough to get into Brown University where I majored in Anthropology. It introduced me to lots of other cultures and way of thinking about the world; I really couldn't get enough of it. While I was there I helped rebuild the student activist left after it collapsed the semester before I arrived (some huge fight between factions of a grand anti-war coalition that caused most of the active people to stop being active). Being in activist groups was probably the best and most meaningful educational experience I got at college. We built a strong community and managed to get a few victories too. I saw such inspirational dedication and courage from my friends, willing to suffer arrest and harassment from the authorities. (I think I told you this part already, but I will leave it in anyway) Our most awesome victory was with financial aid. Now anyone attending Brown whose family makes less than 60,000 doesn't have to take out loans. I am still active with Students for a Democratic Society (sds), and our national democratic and accessible education campaign. After I graduated I moved to California, because the job market is non-existent in Kentucky, my brother is out here, and a bunch of my friends moved here. The job search took me to Tikkun Magazine where I landed a job as Rabbi Michael Lerner's assistant. He is the editor and has a very appealing vision for a better world. It is a good job, I get to build my skills in alot of random areas, and read and make corrections to the magazine before it goes to print.  But it is very time-consuming.

So that is the short history of my life.  Looks like it is only like 25-ish pages.  I think i might have the beginning of an auto-biography :)

Lets see... what else did I want to talk about.  Ah yes, generosity.  So, as people are my purpose (and indeed, i think people are the meaning of life), being generous to others is very much my MO.  Like excessive generosity.  I think it makes people uncomfortable sometimes, how generous I want to be toward them.  It is one reason that I have acquired 5 mattresses over the past year.  I want to have places for people to sleep, especially my friends who lack a job and a place to live.  My friend Jacob might come stay on one of these beds while he looks for a job.  Liz is staying with us right now. Elisabeth stayed with us while she looked for a place to live.  Sidney stayed with us for like 6 months.  It is very important to me to have space for people to stay if they need to.

  

But back to generosity.  I think it is incredibly important to give, and give often.  It is the glue that holds society together, giving.  It makes everyone feel good, it helps people who need help, it promotes and maintains robust reciprocal relationships (which are by far the most evolutionarily stabilizing kind of relationships for people to have).  Giving just makes everything better.  I have gotten to the point where I always keep an eye out for someone I can give to.  (I think I already explained that I have qualms that I am not actually helping homeless people when I give them money... feeding addictions and so on.  If I ever have food on me when I am asked, I always offer that)  There is a passage in "The Prophet" about how the true believers in life give without thought of joy seeking or moral virtue, and give all of the little they have.  I try to aspire to this, although I fail.  I am always on the search for someone to give to.  The search is almost as fun as the giving.  

Much of my thinking on generosity has been shaped by the short paragraphs that are written in "The Prophet."  I have come to see giving as an essential part of life, something that is so inherent in what it means to live that to not give would be like half-living.  I think that is why I have never been a money seeker, it always seemed burdensome and much like a living death... a death of the soul.  Maybe that is too harsh... maybe it is more of an oppression and silencing of the soul.  

The Prophet section on generosity that has stuck in my head for years is "all you have shall one day be given."  I wish more people could intuitively get that (including myself).  I want to bring into question the whole concept of property, because it seems to me like an embodiment of the negative aspects of individualism.  Keeping things from other people for fear you will go without... it is utterly illogical and only "works" (if you can call it that... maybe functions in a semi-predictable manner is a better way to phrase it) when everyone does it, like in American mainstream culture.  I never ever want to be rich.  That is an oppression I have the power to avoid, and so I shall. There was a sign on a wall in one of the buildings at Friends Camp that was quoting a song.  It went "it's a gift to be simple, it's a gift to be free, it's a gift to come down to where we aught to be."  I love that.  I want to live a simple life, to share my little wealth with people, and to live in a supportive caring community.  In my mind, that is the logical outcome of generosity, if everyone were to take it up.  

Oh, there is a great song by Johnny Cash called "Man in Black."  Aside from being a great melody, it has fantastic lyrics.  This one has particularly stayed in my head:

"I wear the black for those who never read,

Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,

Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me." 

The road to happiness IS through love and charity.  I am so happy when I am allowed to give.  It has made my life so fulfilling and rich in so many ways.  I think that is why like 5 years ago I wrote this statement: "The generous life is the happy life" 

My freshman year of college, I really confronted the fear of not living up to my potential and discovered a way to deal with it in a very good way. (btw, I have always fancied my life's work as activism.) Whenever I am afraid that I am not being effective, I think to myself that I have helped lots of people, and even inspired a few.  The MOST important thing I can do to make this world a better place is to be good to the people around me and try to make their lives better.  That is the social change I want, that is the life's message I want to embody.  We may idolize people who lead mass movements, but it is not them that made the change, it is us.  Small groups of people, doing to each other what they thought was right, that is how things are always done.  A few years after deciding this, I discovered an amazing quote by Thomas Merton: "In the end, it is the reality of personal relationship that saves everything." 

Attached to that quote, is another amazing quote, here it is: "Do not depend on the hope of results. You may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results, but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself. You gradually struggle less and less for an idea and more and more for specific people. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationship that saves everything."   I love Thomas Merton, I visited the Monastery he lived at when he was alive.  He died in 1968, like so many of our prophets.  

So yeah, when I worry I am not living up to my potential, I remember that what really counts is how I live my life and how I impact those around me. Doing that is accomplishing something for humanity, probably the most important thing anyone can do.

That reminds me of a story... the winter after I reached this conclusion, I was walking with my high school friend Ben, talking politics.  He was just turning lefty at that point in his life. And I think he was a bit overwhelmed at the impossibility of the problems we are confronted with.  In his despair he asked something like "but what can we do, what should we do."  So I gave him this answer, about treating others well as being the most important thing.  I think I took him aback, because after I explained it, the convo kind of died.  I think it fits in very well with his brand of Catholicism.  

Hmmm... I looked through some of the old letters I wrote to you, and I need to talk about feminism.  I feel very lucky that my Mom was such an amazing ethics teacher, she imbued me from a very early age with a feminist outlook.  She put alot of emphasis on treating everyone equally (no matter gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), and would consistently correct my language usage when I said gender-specific things that should be gender-neutral, like fireman or policeman.  She told me to say Firefighter or police officer.  That is one of hundreds of examples of the way she taught me to challenge the status quo and try to live by a feminist set of values.  I think it is because of her (and my Dad, too, but I think my Mom spent more time doing it) that it is my default setting to treat people with as much respect as possible.  She helped me notice how women were treated differently (a skill that I have developed alot thanks to activism and collective liberation stuff), and to try to point it out and do something about it.  Noticing gender roles is very important to me, and can disturbing sometimes when I notice it.  Especially when I feel compelled to point it out to conservatives, to whom I am still trying to figure out how to do it in a constructive way.

There are so many ingrained things in our society that are hard to even recognize, much less fight, that I feel very blessed that my Mom started developing my recognition tools very early in my development.

I get quite annoyed at egotistical men who always try to dominate discussions and prove their points.  It really bugs the hell out of me.  And it is really hard to deal with productively in a group setting.  I have seen groups dissolve because of the problems that arise from men doing this.  It is a really selfish thing to do, to push and push your point just because you think you are right and that everyone needs to agree with you.  They really disempower those around them, and make them feel apathetic.  I have seen it in activist groups, in corporations, and in friend groups.  There is probably a corollary with women, but I have not had it destroy my communities in the same way that it has happened with this phenomenon in men.  It is really scary how unaware so many of these men are this effect on others too.  sigh.  

So that is something I fight against.  The communities I have helped build have tended to be supportive and caring and have managed to deal with these issues in a way that has allowed them to survive instead of completely collapsing (which i have seen happen from a distance several times). Brown sds did this about a year and a half after I left. The activist communities in the Bay that I have hung around with have tended to be really cool and aware of these problems.  And for the most part, there aren't any men in them that do this, which has been lovely.  You know, I should really write an article on this and try to get it published. 

For some reason I am reminded of a quote I once heard... this idea has stuck with me powerfully ever since I heard it uttered.  In the context of something that was happening in their family the person said "the greatest sin someone can commit is to intentionally hurt someone else, either physically or mentally."  And I was like yeah!  that is so true.  It seems to me that so many selfish people do this on a daily basis, and it is not only destructive to their communities, it is an oppression unto themselves as well.  See, that is something most people have not yet realized, that the oppressors are greatly harmed by the oppression too.  Doing bad things to people hurts you as well as them.  Freeing the world from oppression frees the oppressors as well.  A large segment of the left does not realize this, they are too overcome with the Us vs. Them mentality.  They believe that through defeating your enemies, you will win.  This set of means is a false prophet.  I do not believe that in defeating your enemies, you win.  Only through mutual freedom can we ever hope to achieve justice.  Winning should be defined as converting your enemies to your cause.  I think Christ grasped that, which is why he told us to love our enemies as ourselves.  Loving our enemies allows us to free ourselves from our egos, and our need to have our beliefs be publicly vindicated as truth... and to act in the best interest of all. It allows us to treat enemies in such a way that they will be forced to cease to consider themselves our enemies.  Atleast, that is the way I see it, and have seen it work.    

Content from a letter to Sarah #4

Where was I... oh yes, activism. So, Brown SDS(Students for a democratic Society) started out as a vehicle to unite the left. We had long talks about it, and the fall of 06 we had a network formed which started having regular potlucks. We had a diso guide produced, which we distributed to the freshmen at the beginning of spring semester. We had held several anti-war protests and we were toying around with student rights issues. We held several solidarity events for things that were happening nationally. We collected signatures when that Arab American student was tazed like 8 times at UCLA. We did lots of solidarity stuff with other groups, we went to a Democracy Matters event at the state capitol (a half an hour walk from campus) and helped push for reform of the disenfranchisement of felons law. We tried to storm a corporation meeting with SLA (Student Labor Alliance), but only managed to get onto the balcony. We threw leaflets over the dinner tables. SLA was pushing for food services to stop labor squeezing part time workers, and give them full employment and benefits. I will talk more about what I did with SDS in a little bit.

With OIF (the anti-war group), we attended a bunch of protests, and brought some speakers to campus. We held several protests ourselves, and some of our group, including Bucky, got arrested at a Senator's office for refusing to leave until he signed a statement giving his support for ending the war. It was an action organized by the American Friends Service Committee. I love Quakers. One of the cooler things we did was we managed to get an art grant from the art department so we could buy steaks to put into the ground. We bought enough wood for 655 steaks, and the cold night of March 18th (or 19th) we hammered them into the ground. Some of the ground was frozen, which made it difficult. Let me tell you, even with 6 people there, it took us a few hours to hammer that many stakes into the ground. It took up a half acre, i would guess. Each stake represented a thousand people who had died. (There was a big report that estimated that 655,000 Iraqis died, and had pretty good science behind it) Three stakes represented American fatalities at the time. People said it was one of the most powerful anti-war things they had seen, that it really brought it home.

Spring of 07 SDS started looking at Brown's dealings with war profiteering companies. We found out that Raytheon (makes missiles, among other things) was going to be at the career fair about 4 days before it happened. So, impromptu protest! It was actually surprisingly well-planned. We had about 20 people with signs make a soft picket in front of the Raytheon booth. It was alot of fun. The career fair people called the campus police on us, so we had a nice battle of words with the cops. They brought 5 people up on charges of some bs rule, and dragged out the proceedings all semester. But we won, every charge was dropped, cause we had the right to be there. They did not bother the protest that happened in fall of 07 (I had left by this point, but I heard through word of mouth).

But the Raytheon protest turned into a big media spectacle in the college paper. We won lots of coverage and some sympathetic press. It really got the war issue to be talked about on campus. Amazing how something as simple as that can get people talking.

After the success with the Raytheon protest, we looked into other local war profiteers that we could target. We found Textron. Textron seems much less scrupulous than Raytheon, they make cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are nasty, if you dont know what they are, you should look them up... but they kill way too many civilians. Textron also gets like 90% of its business from the DoD (Department of Defense), and most of the rest from the IDF(Israeli Defense Force). So, we had a die-in in front of their international headquarters which happens to be in Providence. It was so much fun. About 40 of us marched down to downtown Providence, took the street in front of their building, and all lay down and wailed. We had fake blood (raspberry jam, I believe) (also, i just realized that you spell raspberries with a "p". I always thought it was just rasberry cause it is always pronounced "raz-berry") and it was alot of fun. The police showed up and formed a line in front of the building. I was video-tapping the whole thing, staying mostly on the police to make sure they stayed within the law. After we had died for awhile, everyone got together, put jam on their hands, and rushed the building, plastering it with reddish handprints. It is quite amazing to see people non-violently rush through a police line. There are a bunch of pictures I will have to show you.

We got alot of media attention for this. Even a one line reference from Good Morning America. National Media! So exciting. And we were just like 20 committed kids, who managed to get some friends together to do this. Who knew it could be so simple.
But, as we were leaving the protest, we didn't realize that one of our number was staying behind to talk to reporters. Because he was out of the group, the cops were able to arrest him for "disorderly conduct." The charges were eventually dropped. But it just goes to show how there is safety in numbers.

Another project SDS worked on was the creation of a student union. It got off the ground pretty well, we managed to sign up one fifth of the school in the matter of a month. We held a general assembly and talked about tuition hikes and how we wanted to organize ourselves. I hear that the organizing around this got too connected to sds to get off the ground, but it was still pretty awe-inspiring. It did contribute, though, to some significant reforms in the student government, which was essentially entirely undemocratic and worthless.

The student union was also part of an overarching accessibility campaign to lower the cost of tuition so that the school could be more economically diverse. We started off pretty well with this campaign. We got alot of signatures on a petition. We formed the student union. We really managed to build support and make it publicly noticeable that we had a ton of support. And perhaps my greatest college activist accomplishment was that I helped start this campaign. After a year of organizing for this, sds won. In spring of 08, Brown announced that students whose families make under 60,000 will not have to take out loans. So amazing. When I started being an activist, I didn't think it would be this easy. Apparently all you have to do is make a big enough stink about something and it will happen. I feel soooo good about helping start this. It seems to be in the tradition of activists at Brown. The only reason I was able to go was because of needs-blind admission. And that was an initiative of the Young Communist League, who managed to get a big coalition on the left together and push for it. So I continued the tradition, by getting better financial aid for those who come after me, just as those who came before me did for me.

Activism has kind of calmed down for me, since I came to Cali. Sadly. I haven't been able to find a large group of people to work with. Plus, my job takes up so much of my time, it is really hard. I do have a few activist friends who I do stuff with, but it feels like there is no time and too few people.

I have always been on a path toward being an activist and raising a stink about injustice. I may try to be polite all the time, probably too often, but I have a very powerful urge to confront what I consider wrong. My friends from high school were not surprised that I was near the center of the re-invigoration of the left on Brown's campus.

I would credit alot of this reinvigoration to the intentional way I went about building community in the group and how other people took up the task. I tried to set a tone of caring, fun, joy and just general support. Most lefty groups do not have that, and they suffer greatly for it. When there is big trouble, they attack each other. Not the groups I helped build. When they have difficulties, they stick together and support each other. They don't blame each other for mistakes and are ready to forgive each other. At the 2008 national convention that I went to, there was a workshop on group emotional support and caring (yeah, sds is fucking awesome like that!), and the 5 members of Brown's chapter that were in attendance went to that one. Cause they know how important it is. And I feel greatly responsible for setting that tone. I am so proud of what Brown's sds chapter did after I left.
Now I just wish I could get the whole organization to understand it. And get them to use it against injustices, not just for good internal dynamics. Love is a far more powerful weapon than anything hate can throw at you. Love will win over enemies, hate has no such power. I really love Harry Potter's portrayal of this fact. Anyone who had any smidgen of love in their hearts could not be a true follower of Voldemort.

I still do stuff with sds. I would have gone to the national convention if it had not fallen on the same weekend as my cousin Jodi's wedding. Lets see, what do I do. I welcome new sign-ups to sds in the western half of the country. I work to try to maintain communication between chapters out here, which is tough cause they are few and far between. And I maintain a news archive of everything that gets reported on sds nationally (google alerts are amazing for this!). I am constantly amazed at how much news we get. On average, during school semesters, we get about 3 news stories mentioning us every day. Utterly fantastic. (I have stepped back from most of these in mid-2010)

One of the reasons I have remained so committed to sds is because of its willingness to approach things like emotional support. And because it is the only group I have seen where people of differing ideologies come together and manage to get along somehow (how the Maoists and the Anarchists get along in sds, I still don't know, but they do it, somewhat). This is not a common thing on the left. Plus my job does not provide me with the organizing fix that I crave, so I help out sds the little bit that I can all by my lonesome out here.
In case this hasn't become apparent, I will be an activist for the rest of my life. It is my career, so to speak. The life path that has seemed apparent to me ever since I discovered my purpose. I know I will never be defeated by any momentary burnout I feel. I have survived years in the wilderness in KY, and years of overwork at Brown. Those two extremes are often the cause of burnout. I have survived unpleasant organizing environments and managed to convert them into good ones. That is also a prime burnout causer, bad social environments.

Just so you know, i didn't used to be so confident about all this stuff. It has taken me years of self-reflection to really KNOW all this, and understand it, even if my intuition has pointed me in this direction since I can remember.

Content from a letter to Sarah #3

Written around July 1st 2009

So, to start telling you some of my history with political activism... here is a quick and dirty rundown. I think I have always had an anti-authoritarian streak in me. In school, especially high school, I would always complain about what bullshit so much of what we were doing was. I might have told you this story already... in middle school, when the school board passed a rule saying people couldn't wear images of Malcolm X, my Mom encouraged me to wear a Malcolm X stamp on my belt (the same belt I am wearing to this day). She explained that it had multiple symbolism, it wasn't just breaking an unjust rule, it was pointing out that the US government endorsed such images as good. If I had the courage I do now, I would have worn a Malcolm X every day until they did something. Then I would have gotten some of my friends to do it. I would have made it a big deal, and shamed the school board into reversing their decision.

In high school, I would have started organizing if there had been people who wanted to organize. But sadly, no one but me was into activism. So I joined the school newspaper staff, and senior year I wrote an op-ed against the Iraq war when it started. Then, when I gave a speech at graduation (I was 5th in the class and got to give a speech) I gave an anti-war speech. It was awesome, I bet I surprised alot of people in the audience.

Then my freshman year in college I looked and looked for activists to organize with, but as I would later learn, the entire activist left had collapsed in early 2003, before I was at college. So, toward the end of my Freshman year I started up a discussion group around envisioning an alternate society. Never got too many people to attend, but lots of good conversation. So my sophmore year was pretty quiet, activism on campus was basically non-existent. The beginning of my junior year, an anti-war meeting was called and like 30 people showed up. I was one of them. This meeting would shape the Brown activist left for the next 4 years, as so many of the leading activists in the community attended and really started their activist careers at this meeting. I feel honored to have been there. We had a few meetings to determine what we wanted to do and started organizing. We called ourselves "OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom, anti-war group)" People who were at those meetings went on to dominate BEAN (Brown Environmental Action Network), SLA (Student Labor Alliance), The Brown Democrats, SuFI (Sustainable Food Initiative), SSDP (Students for a Sensible Drug Policy), Democracy Matters (public funding for elections), SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), and a few others that I can't remember.

So, in 2005, we started organizing against the war. We wrote articles for the newspaper. We brought some speakers to campus. We tried to raise our profile and make the war an issue that was talked about on campus. We got together with a few local community groups and did alittle Truth in Recruitment. We went to the large anti-war marches in DC. There was this one rally in Providence when it was single digits outside, and we rallied for 2 hours. I was so cold, I had like 5 layers on, but I was still cold. There were about 200 people there, and their commitment was so amazing to be out in the cold for so long. Very inspiring.

This is a picture of the first time I addressed a political rally. So far, it has been the only time. I gave a short intro for a professor who was speaking. It was cold that day. You will notice Bucky is the left-most person in the picture, holding a sign. We were holding a protest of Hillary Clinton in 2005 because she was promoting really Hawkish policies and saying Bush needed to escalate the war in Iraq. So yeah, we protested, it was fun.

At the end of my Junior year, we started talking about getting a group together that could tie together all the issues everyone was fighting for. And it just so happened that one of our professors was hosting the first Students for a Democratic Society conference since the 1960s at Brown. It re-formed in Jan 2006, and we started a chapter in March. I spearheaded this group for most of 2006. We held the conference and started organizing the left community at Brown. Then in May 2006 we started laying the groundwork for the Social Justice Network to get all the small groups on the left in campus talking. I am proud to say that alot of the impetus for this came from me. It is still going strong, they have potlucks I hear. So over the summer and my first semester of senior year we worked on the SJN and getting a Disorientation Guide published to help with the SJN. Here is a copy: http://www.campusactivism.org/server-new/uploads/browndisorientiationguide-2006.pdf I wrote about a third of it. I also designed the front cover graphic.There is more to tell... but i think it will have to wait for the next letter.

sds at Brown

8 members of Students for a Democratic Society at Brown are being brought up on disciplinary charges for entering University Hall when The Brown Corporation was meeting and trying to present them with a petition signed by 1000 students, faculty and staff. They are being charged with allegedly hurting Brown University employees (i.e. Brown police). None of these injuries required hospitalization. But this raises some questions. Why are only 8 of them being charged? Does the University administration think that sds intentionally hurt people? Or is this just some authorities scared to lose their power, so they are trying to make an example out of a few people to scare the others off. That is what it seems to be. They are just out for retribution for a very public disruption of a Corporation meeting and the threat that 1000 supporters wanting democracy presents to this governing group.

These charges are arbitrary and unjust, and it just seems like they were created to have something to charge sds with. I am happy, however, to see Brown sds in the news so much, and making such a large impact on the minds of students. That takes organization, time and effort. I know that if sds keeps this kind of pressure up, they will have some measure of success.

I hope, though, that sds arranges a face-saving way out for the Corporation to take. Giving them an out will allow sds to determine the way this ends and provide a win-win situation for sds and the Corporation. Sds will get some consessions, and the Corporation will get this embarrasing issue out of the news and out of people's minds. Then sds can start another round of demands, make a big fuss about it, get alot of media coverage and support, and give the Corporation a way out that benefits both groups. That way, we achieve their consent to doing what we want, without the often fruitless battle of chicken that two groups with indomnitable wills tend to fall into. There is no sense in a total war mentality that demands the complete surrender of an opponent when one's opponent has a strong sense of pride that will always prevent them from taking a step that they feel will humiliate them. Better to understand this about one's opponent and use it to one's advantage than to try to force capitutlation, because that almost always will never come.

The same goes for the Corporation. If they understood sds, they would try to work something out, because sds is not going to be cowed by a disciplinary hearing or even having some of its members suspended from school. That will only back sds into a corner and cause them to fight harder. But no, the Corporation is arrogant enough to think it can ignore the widespread wish for more democracy at Brown and do as it wishes because it is the authority. More democracy would teach Brown students how to be better citizens and how to compromise and resolve conflict. This would be an objective improvement in the atmosphere at Brown as well as the educational environment. It is so sad to see a group charged with improving and sustaining the Brown community can have its vision of clouded so thouroughly by pride.

A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

sds National Convention

The sds National Convention was a great time.  It was a very reinvigorating experience.  I have really missed a strong political community.  It was also wonderful to see my old friends from Brown and Providence, and to meet some of the new people there.  I am SO SO proud of them.  When we decided to start an sds chapter, I had a sense of the kind of organization I wanted to push Brown sds to become.  An organization that provided a space for a strong community that supported its members, and knew how important community is.  Well, I have to say, the organization has become what I hoped for.  The members of Brown and Providence sds emotionally support each other when they are feeling down, stay together and not explode at each other when they are dealt a set-back, and strongly interweave friendship and fun into their activities.  

And so, because the culture of Brown/Providence sds is so strongly community-oriented, they turn out more people, they work harder without burning out, they are ambassadors for the organization wherever they go, and they have incorporated sds into their identity.  Our small chapter turned out 9 people (10 if one includes me) to the convention, which is comparable to much larger cities, and more than came from the entire Northwest.  There was a workshop at the conference that focused on building a community of support within sds, and almost the entire chapter attended, because they realize how important it is.  SO AWESOME.  

I met alot of really awesome sdsers at the convention, and while the structure that was produced isnt ideal, I do hope that it manages to get things done and help coordinate the working groups.  I have the feeling that we will need strong organization to be able to absorb the influx of members that is likely to occur after Obama is inaugurated and is unable or unwilling to get things done.  

There is such a diverse group of people in sds, while I worry that the organization would turn in a direction that I am opposed to, I wish more people would acknowledge that every organization that has people in it is going to be messy.  There is way too much pure-ism on the left, people are way too willing to simply wash their hands of an organization that doesn't completely agree with them on everything.  That is such a prideful move... essentially saying that the only reason people would disagree with someone, that those who disagree are both stupid and monolithically unchangeable.  This is where sectarianism comes from, when people are more concerned with their own righteousness than with the health of the community.  It is so self-centered, and it is why there are so many splinter groups on the left.  People are so certain they are right, and so concerned about remaining pure and in a pure organization that they completely disassociate themselves from each other.  You can't organize a fundamental change to society if you can not even work together, much less compromise on something that enough people like that it could have traction in the general society.     

I want to make sure people don't think I am ranting at sds... while there are some people in sds who are self-righteous and anti-consensus, the vast majority of sdsers are awesome and flexible.  That is why I am still able to spend time with them without going insane, they generally understand that democracy is not about forcing one's views on others, but about dialogue and coming to an agreement with opposing parties.  

I also heard that there is a group at UCBerkeley that is thinking about affiliating with sds, which would be amazing.  I have so hoped that there would be an sds chapter around here that I could go to.  

So, here's to sds! 

sds National Conference Account I Wrote up for Tikkun

The following is an account of the sds National Conference which I wrote for Tikkun.  It will probably go up on the Tikkun website under Current Thinking soon.  

The new incarnation of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) is alive and thriving.   SDS convened its third national convention in College Park, Maryland on July 24th 2008, with the mandate to pass a national structure.  The University of Maryland chapter of sds along with the help of other DC sdsers, played host for over 140 sds members from across the country.  The long plenaries were broken apart by singing, meals, collective liberation activities, workshops, caucuses and socializing.  After trudging through a very long and rushed two days of discussing structure, the convention passed a resolution outlining a National Working Committee as the administrative (and possibly somewhat executive) body of the organization.  This structure will need to be ratified by the chapter base to go into effect.   

Political/Spiritual Analysis

SDS is a complicated political entity.  It has a very politically diverse membership, ranging from Anarchists to Maoists to a smattering of mainstream liberals.  The majority of the membership is anti-authoritarian and very distrustful of hierarchy, and yet we managed to compromise on structure to allow for some hierarchy when it comes to coordination of the national organization.  This bodes well for the future of sds. Being able to unify a diverse group of political outlooks toward positive social change will build the power of the organization and encourage membership growth.

SDS has a very strong vein of spiritual analysis in it, although very few sds members would frame it that way.  Recognizing how people are disenfranchised and dehumanized, having compassion for those suffering around the world, feeling compelled by their consciences to resist an unjust system, believing a better world is possible, and developing human-need-oriented structures are all key elements of a spiritual analysis of society which sds has whole-heartedly embraced. It is still discussing spiritual issues surrounding the humanization of one's opponents, suffering as a method of social change, and interfacing with the spiritual/religious community. 

Religious/Spiritual Issues

Like any community of left-leaning people, there is a certain amount of anti-religious fervor.  This is mostly directed at religious institutions for their role in oppression and causing injustice.  There is however, some deriding of religious/spiritual people as simplistic and foolish.  Sds has taken a mature approach to this issue through starting a discussion around stereotyping religious/spiritual people and the counter-productivity of blindly attacking religions as monolithic-ally bad.  The discussion touched on the extremely high standards that religions are held to by anti-religious people.  The point that religion institutions are run by humans, so they have the same flaws as every other institution was made.  Unfortunately there was not much time for discussion and the development of a mutual understanding to develop, so continuing the healing of this rift will have to wait for another day.     

Community

More impressive though, is the role that sds has been able to play in the lives of political activists.  That is, the establishment of a national community of like-minded people.  Connecting new people into the network, and having groups for across the country for sdsers to join when they move.  Prevention of the overwhelming feeling of isolation is essential to the health of the movement, and sds's network fulfills this beautifully.   Whenever a high school sds chapter graduates a class of sdsers, they spread like seeds across the nation to build new or reinforce existing sds chapters.  When students transfer, they can plug into a nearby chapter.  When a college chapter graduates a class of sdsers, they inject veteran organizers into the real world, organizers who often believe they will dedicate their lives to the pursuit of social justice.  This community causes dedication like none I have ever seen.  It effectively shields its members against ghastly burnout and provides a sense of security that is hard to find in the present social system. 

And this community is often deliberately created and cultivated.  There was a workshop at the convention titled "Building a Community of Support within sds" where the group discussed what in sds made them feel isolated and dis-empowered and what made them feel hopeful, fulfilled and empowered.  This discussion was very healing for those who attended.  Events such as this will help us develop the behavioral technology to protect our communities from the corrosive effects of isolation, fear, mistrust, personality clashes and misplaced anger.  In addition to this excellent workshop, the organizers of the conference created an emotional support and conflict resolution team to attempt to heal many of the frustrations, anger, and miscommunication created during the convention's decision-making process.  While sds does not always focus on how to adapt its current structures to fit human needs, this conference did a substantial job of creating a setting that facilitated the creation and protection of community.

Campaigns

The National Convention gave its seal of approval to one campaign, the "Student Power for Accessible Education" campaign.  This national campaign will, in the short term, push for fewer loans for students, tuition freezes, more grants, lower textbook costs, and many other needed changes to the financial interactions between students and their colleges. Mid-term goals include establishing student unions across the US, and building student power.  The long term goals include fair and free education for all, since after all, education is a right.  Individual sds chapters, as well as any other organizations that want to join us, can plug into this campaign simply by beginning to act on their own campus.  The idea is to not only push for change in the education system, but to build a student movement with the confidence and the skills to be able to have a decisive impact on the greater society. National coordination or activity is a possibility, but that will likely wait until there is a significant presence of chapter campaigns. 

Funk the War on the Poor

On Monday the 28th, DC sds hosted an action for those attending the convention to attend.  It was a roving dance party (essentially a march) that protested the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, I-69, through many poor communities in the Midwest and South.  This highway is actually going to pass about 60 miles from my home town, so it was surprisingly relevant to me.  The tactic of dancing was quite effective in keeping a good group energy and appealing to on-lookers.  The police showed up in force, nearly 50 of them to our 100.

Update

I am still falling behind on my one post a week pledge.  I wanted to write about 3 more this month, but things happened and I didn't devote the time to it.  There is always next month.  

I do have alot to write about, though.  But... I still posted more recently than Bucky.  

For the past two weeks I have been extremely busy with both the sds National Convention and at the Tikkun office, as well as reading an excellent book on Jesus and nonviolence.  More to come on that later.  

But most interestingly of all, I have started studying for the LSAT and I have decided to try to go to law school.  The way I figure it, law school will help me understand the law and what I can do with it to change society.  Given my lifelong goals of making the world a better place, I figure knowing the law will allow me to combine my organizing and activist knowledge and outlook with a sense of how to push for change both inside and outside the system.  Knowing law will also allow me to use the legal system to my advantage when waging change.  So that is my reasoning. 

Now comes the inevitable turmoil of finding a school, going back to school, and settling in a new location.  I do not particularly look forward to being back in school, although the thought of going to regular sds meetings is sooooooo alluring.  I was never a fan of homework, or excessive reading, and I feel that law school will have alot of that.  But it will feel much more useful, I believe, than the reading that I had to do for school in the past.  

I am settling into living in El Cerrito.  It is really a lovely town, and I love my commute.  walking for 15 minutes, and riding the train.  I love supporting public transportation.  My job is going well, and I feel capable and productive from it.  Things are definitely going my way.  

RYM and societal change.

RYM.  The Revolutionary Youth Movement.  It is something I have been thinking about alot lately, analyzing and reflecting upon its historical impact. 

RYM was a strategic vision that SDS laid out in the 60s, not to be confused with the sds sectarian groups that named themselves RYM I (which eventually became the weathermen) and RYM II (that went maoist and communist and eventually gave birth to countless splinter groups).  Now, I don't think I am getting this exactly correct... but what Michael Lerner described in one of his unpublished books is the basis for this understanding of RYM...  The strategy was simple and very long-term.  The idea was education based: you make a concerted and structured effort to teach as many young people as possible about progressive politics, ethics, and ideas.  You convince them and give them a reason for investing themselves in those politics. When they leave school they will go into the world and spread the ideas, and live their lives by them as much as is possible inside the system.  This will have a culture shifting impact.  Their actions will shift the perceptions of those around them.  Their contributions to their communities will change localities.  

This strategy combines the finest strengths of the left.  Strength of ideas, education, embodiment of principles, decentralized structure and grassroots action are all combined into an extremely long-term strategy that appears to have been quite effective.  It acknowledged the shifts that always occur when generations turn-over.  As new generations come and older ones leave, culture changes.  RYM takes advantage of this natural process of culture change by attempting to reform society by reshaping the minds of new generations.  

Unfortunately, RYM was only practiced for... perhaps the better part of a decade, if not less.  But it's impact is striking.  Take the issue of racism for example.  50 years ago, racism was the dominant viewpoint among large swaths of the American public, including in my hometown of Edmonton.  But now, racism has been forced underground.  It is now a shameful thing to be seen as or acting as a racist.  

But aside from issue oriented changes, I would also like to see how 5 to 10 years of RYM affected the life of a single person... me.  I am proud to say my parents were both products of RYM, whether they know it or not.   The ideas they garnered from the 60s allowed them to move to rural Kentucky and raise me there.  My mom's strong strain of feminism probably would have not been able to develop had it not been for RYM, and I would have lost one of the major positive influences on the way I structure my behavior toward everyone.  My Dad's political side also had an immense impact on shaping my perspective and direction in life.   

The compassion and dedication both of my parents have shown through their social work were, in part, inspired by their politics which were shaped by RYM.   Their dedication to helping others, even if you have to live "in the trenches" as my Dad has said, has consistently inspired me to live up to their example.  

Now lets look at the town I grew up in.  It is a town of 1500 people in rural Kentucky.  The poverty rate is nearly 25%. According to my Dad, there were duels in the streets in the 50s.  However, over the past 3 decades things have calmed down.  There are still plenty of problems, but since the influx in the 70s of hippies and people shaped by RYM, the culture of the county has changed.  Many of these hippie settlers have become community leaders.  Their children have gone on to change the minds of their peers and further the reverberating effects of RYM.  I can see the culture-shifting affects in my hometown of the concerted efforts of relatively small group of tens of thousands of young adults over the course of several years trying to institute RYM.  If between 5 and 10 years of instituting RYM can so drastically change our society that a small rural town in the middle of no where Kentucky is impacted this much, then imagine what a organized effort of 20 years of RYM could do.  With this technique we could restructure the very foundations upon which our society rests over the course of the next 100 years.  

A Lesson from History, for My Beloved sds.

One quick thought, which I had while reading historical analysis of the 60s.
There was a huge upsurge in sds recruitment in the post election time period between 1968 and 1971. While this may be attributed to the media attention that the DNC protest of 68 garnered, I think there is another reason that is more plausible. The 1968 election was the population's chance to change the direction of the country. Many people who saw the millions crying out against the war would first try the typical method for changing the direction. When this failed, they would become more cynical about its viability, and look for other methods to change things. Plus none of the standard methods for the rank and file citizenry can change policy (i.e. voting) were coming up soon after the 68 election. So people naturally looked for alternatives, since they tried voting and that didnt work. They saw sds and the new left. While many of them may not have been happy with the yucky sectarianism and negative feelings floating around sds at that time, they were the only game in town. And so, tens of thousands joined.

I am afraid for the future of sds. If whoever is elected fails to end the war (and my cynical side tells me they probably will), then the new sds will be swamped by new recruits, more than we can handle. So, I think our task in the coming year needs to be building the institutional capacity to absorb and teach all these new recruits. And that is one overwhelming task.

Democracy and Violence Part 2

Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.

I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.

Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.

Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.

Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.

The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.

So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy

Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.

Democracy and Violence Part 1

Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.

So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.

Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.

So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.

Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.

Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.

So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.

I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.

In other news, I got my California License!

In the News

Awesome news. There is an article about my friend Brian Kelly in the New York Times. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/nyregion/thecity/23sds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=thecity

Also look at the list of media coverage of the sds 5th year anniversary events: http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/march20/?q=node/26

It is so inspiring to see my fellow young adults being active and politically engaged. I am so proud of all my friends who got arrested in the past week. Ya'll are awesome.
This post is dedicated to all those who participated in those events! I love you all.

"Students Against Hippies in Trees"

On Monday, I opened "The Daily Californian," the student paper of UC Berkeley, and I was greeted by a picture of a fellow I had just met on Friday at a welcoming party held by the Metta Center (a center for spreading education about non-violence). In the picture, he is just standing next to a tree, and cops are swarming him. He had been sitting in a tree on campus for the past couple weeks, trying to raise awareness about the undemocratic nature of the UC Board of Reagents. He was arrested on Friday around 2:15 and I met him around 4 at the party. He introduced himself as "Fresh," and I talked to him for awhile about the Democratizing the Reagents campaign. Pretty interesting stuff, he had alot of the same complaints that Brown students have, and is organizing around issues that sds is organizing around.
It is nice to see that even in places where sds does not exist yet, there are people organizing around some of the central issues which sds is doing across the nation. I am planning on contacting some of the other organizers of the campaign and tell them about sds, with the hope that they will hook into the sds network to help their cause (as well as maybe become an sds chapter :-) ).
But what I found hilarious about the article in the Daily Californian was that there is actually a group called "Students Against Hippies in Trees." And they showed up to protest the protest. Gotta love counter-protests, they are always kind of funny, especially when they have ridiculous names like that.
The thing that still boggles my mind is why the University cares that Fresh was in a tree for two weeks. It is not like the Oak Grove tree sit where they wanted to build something on the site. They had no designs on cutting down the tree that Fresh was in, so why did they make such a big deal about it? If they had just ignored him, his protest probably would have slowly trailed off and ended unceremoniously. But instead, they invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and symbolic investment into Fresh's protest. When he came down, it was in front of 150 people and he was arrested on the spot. Now that is an awesome climax for a protest, and bound to get plenty of attention, which is what he was after. If the administration had ignored him, I doubt he would have made it into the press very much. It is only because they responded that he even made a splash. It reminds me of that part in Harry Potter where Dumbledore is explaining to Harry that the only reason the Prophecy would come true is because Voldemort put worth into it and let it affect his actions. He sewed the seeds of his own undoing by putting faith in the truthfulness of that prophecy. Indeed, the prophecy is self-fulfilling, as long as he believed in it. The same is true of this protest. The administration believed that this protest would have an affect, and consequently, they reacted strongly to it. Strong enough to try, in the words of Fresh, a "sneak ninja attack" at night, and ban him from campus for a week when he came down. If they had just ignored him, I doubt anyone would have showed up to see the drama of a confrontation (there would not have been one if the administration had ignored him). Nor would the press have cause to write an article where there was no tension (they are annoying like that). The administration could have defused the tension of the situation by ignoring him.
All in all, this just shows the strength of non-violence. When your opponent strikes out, it only makes you stronger and your message more prominent. And while I am not sure how effective sitting in a tree for two weeks is toward democratizing the reagents (aside from getting press to the issue)... it sure makes for a good story.

Reflections on Organization

I am convinced more and more that effective organization combined with a vision for the future are essential to changing this society. Nothing short of this will have the ability to shift the debate decisively toward justice. My college experience has taught me this vital lesson.
The first student group I started in college failed because it was all vision and no organization. I learned so much about organizing by doing that, and taking that responsibility. It was a crash course in organizing, and I am so glad that I had that experience. The next clubs I helped found showed me the importance of organization. Operation Iraqi Freedom (Brown's anti-war group, abbr. as OIF) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) gave me a good contrast to look at what effective organization can do. As much as I love OIF, it does not have as much of a vision as SDS, mostly because it is narrowly defined as an anti-war group. SDS is multi-issue and is able to articulate a much broader and more compelling dream of a better world. OIF was able to draw alot of attention to the war issue, but I think it has been unable to significantly shift the debate about the war in the Brown community (yet!). It is almost like preaching to the choir. Brown students already mostly agreed that the war was terrible and needs to be ended, so raising awareness did not need to be the primary goal. The primary goal would have needed to be trying to mobilize people, creating a forum for people to discuss what they could do, and setting goals to achieve. I feel that OIF has not managed to do that, and I think that is because its politics did not embrace a vision for the future that would have spawned goals.
SDS was better able to push the public dialog because it could look at a problem, apply its vision to the problem, and come up with a novel goal that was generally new to the dialog on Brown's campus. Presenting new ideas and giving people a concrete, local goal to "hope for" and work toward will mobilize people. And if there is effective organization behind that mobilization, it can really do amazing things (like signing up 1/6 of the student population into a new student union in two weeks. YEAH SDS!).
So, having had experience with groups that had vision, but no organization; organization but no vision; and one with both organization and vision, I have found that having both is far more effective at changing things. These groups are also more appealing (to me).

Governments are an interesting entity to analyze through this lens. They have plenty of organization, but no vision. Even when certain politicians have vision, and actively express it, the organizational inertia of the government often seems to be unmovable. This may be why so many people are cynical about government, because even if you have strong organization, you cannot do much without the proverbial compass of vision to point you in the right direction. However, like all organizations, governments are movable through outside pressure. A large movement of people can push a government toward doing something.
But this is not the way governments are supposed to be. Theoretically, a government is supposed to be a forum to discuss the issues on people's minds, a representation of the collective will of the society, and the organ which is supposed to act on that will. People always blame the government when social problems arise and/or continue to exist. That is because
the government is the institution charged with protecting, reinforcing, helping and stabilizing society (and the people within it). It seems that the current governmental structure in these United States does not fulfill its goal. I think that part of the reason for this is because government is no longer defined as just another institution in society that has a specific purpose.
I am not sure what the government is now defined as, but I have the feeling it varies between different groups of people.
Anyway, I want to figure out how to structure a government so that it can really be what it is supposed to be.