The jangling of keys.

During the Velvet Revolution in former Czechoslovakia, the protesters in the thousands, jangled their keys indicating the time for the regime was up. We need to do the same for those that support the One Percent. See the following link: http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&sobi2Id=18

This one action and others are examples on how revolution can occur without violence and  a bit of  humor.
Those in the Occupy Movement and Progressives should like-wise follow the example of the Velvet Revolution and other non-violent movements.

The theme of the Occupy Movement must remain non-violence

Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.

Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.

Dalai Lama XIV

These insightful quotes by the Dalai Lama XIV contain some of the basic elements of non-violence resistance.  In the first statement, the Dalai Lama is urging people wanting change not to be overcome by the concept that violence is the route to achieve change.  Violence is the vehicle of despots, mob rule and persons who are valueless and without compassion.  The history of the world is littered with examples of those who sought to change the world by violence for a perceived ultimate end state, which brought about tragic consequences for humanity (i.e., Russian Revolution, purges of the U.S.S.R. by Stalin, the Khmer Rouge’s decimation of the population of Cambodia, China’s Great Cultural Revolution, Robespierre ‘Reign of Terror’, the Holocaust, genocide in multitude of locations etc.) The ends do not justify the means.  Likewise, those that advocate violence for social change, often become its victims.  The statement ,“If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.,” still resounds as when it was first spoken by Jesus (Mathew 26: 52.)  Yet, we still ignore the statement’s truth and continue to propose violence as the means to resolve conflict.  The ends do not just the means, if the means are violence against society such as torture, persecution, imprisonment, and death to opponents.  This doesn’t rule out self-defense, which should be wielded with the upmost caution within a non-violent setting.

The second statement is predicated by the first.  To seek change, we must be wise and clever to use the tools of those that are seeking to oppress.   The greatest ‘rule breaker’ was Jesus.  He was the model for those to come, particularly Gandhi-the most influential non-violent leader in modern times.  The One Percent tout ideas of democracy, free market capitalism as a means for prosperity, freedom of speech, equality, security and protection of the people and human rights. However, these are just words to placate the masses, while their only goals are: to create more wealth for them and to use power to control to secure this. Those who are seeking non-violent change use, challenge or break: laws. They use the institutions grounded in the principles of Justice, basic human yearning and other universal principles to initiate change.   This deliberative process has been proven to effective  to bring about positive societal change. 

The basis of non-violence action is grounded on the thoughts handed down to us from great moral teachers who were not seeking regime change, but deep societal change.  The source of their Wisdom came from the Ultimate Force (God, YHVH, Allah, or any other name that we has humans have coined for this unknowable, mysterious, wonderful power that guides humans and set the world into motion.)  Jesus often stated, “My Kingdom is not of this World.”  In other words, I am not seeking to overthrow the Roman Empire in Israel, but seeking to change men and women’s thoughts and actions.. this is petty stuff.   John Lennon in ‘Revolution’ on the White Album of the Beatles is the lyrics, “you say you want to change the constitution.. you better free your mind instead.”  There is an ultimate Good that is more important than changing a regime, a political party or policies.  To be focused on a future state and negate values is destructive to the persons believing this and to the society they are seeking to change.  Non-violence stresses the upholding of a greater morality, individual well-being and spiritual health as important and working through and over the established laws to bring about change.

No Pepsi for you!.... Pepsi for everyone! Super Bowl Commercial .. Interesting Message

A somewhat different commercial from Pepsi at the recent Super Bowl. I found this while stumbling through the Internet looking for organizations protesting the Super Bowl.

However, it is not just a a commercial, but a vehicle full of symbols.relating to the Occupy Movement.  The King  (Sir Elton John) represents the The One Percent,  The Ninety-Nine Percent is represented by the Melanie Amaro, winner of the X Factor.and the surrounding crowd. Aretha Franklin's Respect is an appropriate song.

Besides, the overtone of hte commercial, there are also some sly and carefully placed  lines/scenes that are comments on popular culture. There is a brief vignette near the commercial's beginning which is it is view of 'tweeting' in the Middle Ages. A common phrase often heard by parents reminescent of the humor of teh Black Adder and Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which use Medieval themes with references ot modern cultural symbols. I like Elton's comment, "What are you doing?" to the person 'tweeting.' echoing parents,  teachers and others  irritated by the addiction to youth (maybe all segments of the population) to social media.. His fluidity in saying this statement, is indicative that this is not the first time he has uttered these comments. It is apparent that  he must have said this to his  nephews, nieces or godchildren whose cell phones are an appendage to them. He and his partner's son is too young to 'tweet', but maybe babies are tweeting now too..)

Can this carefully crafted  commercial  be compared to: a scene from: a Gilbert and Sullivan  operetta, a play by Oscar Wilde  or Monty Python skits which were noted for their poignant, but disarming comic portrayal of  prevailing attitudes, social position.and the ruling class.  In times like this, we can use humor to diffuse tense situations and cajole the public to think deeper about issues.  I contend that this is exactly what  is being purposely done by the producers  of this commercial. Perhaps, it is a glimmer of things to come.

Why cannot we have sublime satire as we topple the One Percent and  herald in a new Age of Enlightenment full of promise and hope.  The elements of satire is so evident in the antics of the Tea Party  the present Republican candidates for President, and austerity oriented  politicians in th Europe who paint a bleak and uninspiring.picture.  They  beg to be ridiculed by satirists and other political pundits, such as Jon Steward and Steven Colbert  who have no need to look for material when it is so freely given by these modern day Bourgeoisie dullards. If only Oscar Wilde was still alive!. But, he would adeptly ridiculed both the Occupy Movement and those in the Tea Party.  Maybe, the reincarnation of Gilbert and Sullivan and Mr Wilde are 'in the wings' somewhere. If so, we are in for a treat that will make this a wonderful time to live.

The Superbowl: A vehicle for the One Percent

In America, attacking the Superbowl, brings on the wrath of the American population. It is a 'sacred ceremony' of American culture becoming more outrageous every year. In this posting, I am definitely provoking controversy and intellectually taunting those who are fans. Either one will be outraged and 'froth at the mouth' at my comments and state, "How dare he criticize the Super Bowl! He is anti-American or a Communist!; or agree (perhaps reluctantly) with my sardonic remarks.

History repeats itself. In the last days of the Roman Empire, the nobility occupied the citizens of Rome with ever more fantastic and violent games. The games were a distraction deliberately sponsored by the Roman nobility to lull the masses into complacency and away from the fact that they were: in the midst of moral political and economic decay; the nobility's slaves/dependents and being fooled to pay homage to the gladiators whose fame was often brief.  Today, the Colosseum in Rome is in a hollow shell devoid of the blood thirsty masses. The Emperors and nobility are dust and denounced for their arrogance, debauchery and flaunting of enourmous wealth and power over the larger majority who were either slaves or impoverished subjects dependent upon their whims. As the examples of the Roman Empire were used by Machivelli in The Prince and other works, can we not also draw parallels from this time to ours? I think that the comparisons are hauntingly prophetic.

If one thinks this is only harmless entertainment, think again.. By supporting the Super Bowl  you are endorsing the One Percent, adding to their wealth and their control  over the Ninety-Nine Percent.  It is delusional  to rationalize it otherwise. . The  corporations and extremely rich individuals that fund this Bacchanalian event are the same that have allowed and encouraged the Supreme Court to rule in favor  Citizens United, encouraged state terrorism through the Patriot Act , discouraged energy sustainability, created the Financial Crisis of 2008,  led to the decline of the Middle Class. caused environmental degradation, outsourced American jobs, made an increasing number of people homeless and f created the culture of uber-consumerism that led to the American addition to credit and indebtedness, masking the growing inequality in incomes..( Urber-comsumerisn is concept of induced consumerism based on a invented need for the goods  based on a manufactured  perception of inadequacy without them. See the following link: http://wealthartisan.com/2010/04/07/uber-consumerism-explained/ ,).

In the struggle against the plutocracy that controls the U.S., one cannot selectively choose when to oppose the One Percent. The Superbowl is another blatant example that the One Percent are willing to spend millions to inculcate the U.S. public with their propaganda. We as Americans must acknowledge that this ultimate spectacle is a subversive vehicle for the One Percent;  This icon of American culture, must be relegated to the dust heap, as an additional message to the One Percent that their time is up.

When will the police support the Occupy Movement?

Every day there are reports of police officers using force against peaceful protestors exercising their Right to Assemble and Freedom of Speech.

History repeats itself. All social movements in the U.S. have been plagued by the police protecting factory owners, coal mine operators, the railroads, racist governments, and the military-industrial complex which we now identify as the One Percent. The police in all these cases did not realize that they were defending the very ones who oppressed them and duped them in believing that they were defending the public good. In the long run, those protesting were supporting the ‘right thing’ and the police were supporting the status quo.

Sometimes, the military and the police, like in Egypt, come to the conclusion that they must side with their fellow citizens. When will our police have this change of heart?

In this posted video, there are some brave policemen who recognize that they are ‘cogs in the wheel’ supporting the One Percent. However, many police are afraid to join the ranks of the Occupy Movement and defend the Constitution, not the One Percent. Why are they afraid, because the One Percent pay their salaries and benefits, which without them they would be out of a job. The One Percent are using the unemployment and under-employment situation for their advantage to ‘brow beat’ the ninety-nine percent into submission. This is not democracy, this is tyranny.

The police in the U.S are acting as puppets for the One Percent. But, for how long will this last? When will they join forces and defend those in the Occupy Movement? That moment might come sooner than we think. When it does occur, this will be the turning point which will demonstrate that change is coming.

Freedom of the Press is being assaulted

Journalists Arrested At Congressional Hearing

On  February 1, 2021, Josh Fox (who produced Gasland-a documentary on hydraulic fracturing)  was arrested for attempting to film a Congressional hearing about hydraulic fracturing.  His arrest is evidence of the Republicans paid by the major oil companies,trying to keep the public uniformed about the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing The hearing is fairly low key, but a documentary would given the issue more coverage. In the video, one should notice that none of the Congressmen or the audience protested the removal of Mr. Fox. 

The following is a statement by Mr. Fox made on February 1, 2012:

I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill. I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today's hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPAs findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply. I featured the stories of residents John Fenton, Louis Meeks and Jeff Locker in GASLAND and I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2. It would seem that the Republican leadership was using this hearing to attack the three year Region 8 EPA investigation involving hundreds of samples and extensive water testing which ruled that Pavillion's groundwater was a health hazard, contaminated by benzene at 50x the safe level and numerous other contaminants associated with gas drilling. Most importantly, EPA stated in this case that fracking was the likely cause.

As a filmmaker and journalist I have covered hundreds of public hearings, including Congressional hearings. It is my understanding that public speech is allowed to be filmed. Congress should be no exception. No one on Capitol Hill should regard themselves exempt from the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...that infringes on the Freedom of the Press". Which means that no subcommittee rule or regulation should prohibit a respectful journalist or citizen from recording a public hearing.

This was an act of civil disobedience -- yes done in an impromptu fashion -- but at the moment when they told me to turn off the cameras, I could not. I know my rights and I felt it was imperative to exercise them.

For more information go to the related article in Common Dreams