It is our Duty to Struggle

It is our Duty to Struggle
By Brian Becker


[The following is the text of Brian Becker’s presentation given on March 14, 2012, in Washington DC at the Cuban interests Section, for the launching of the book, “It is our Duty to Struggle”. The book is based on a Feb. 2012 meeting of Cuban leader Fidel Castro with intellectuals from 22 countries in Havana. Becker is the National Coordinator of the ANSWER – Act Now to Stop War and End Racism – Coalition.]

I want to thank Ambassador Bolaños for the invitation, I thank the Cuban people and the Cuban government and Fidel for this very important initiative, bringing together intellectuals to discuss that monumental topic, saving the planet from war and environment destruction, and giving the book the title, “We have a Duty to Struggle.”

It is so interesting that the Cubans talk to the intellectuals, saying we have the duty to struggle, using that kind of language. It can’t help but remind you of the spirit and the language of a certain German intellectual from 160 years ago. He would have considered himself a revolutionist and a fighter, but certainly was recognized as the premier intellectual at that time and since. He said philosophers have tried to interpret the world, our point is to change the world. The Cuban people and their leadership have challenged the intellectuals, and the people of conscience of the world, not to just observe the process of war, not to observe the cause of war, or the cause of environment destruction, but in observing, to prepare a program of action, so that the scourge of war and environmental destruction can be resisted, can be overcome.

That is the task at hand. On the question of war, we can’t identify the evil of war as simply the absence of peace, Rather, we need to decipher the fundamental causes of war, so that in identifying them we can address those causes. We are confronting a real crisis right now, as the forces of the U.S. military, overtly and covertly, and in league and in tandem with the EU and with the NATO countries and with the Israeli regime, are preparing for a multi-faceted assault against the sovereign government of Iran.

We have to look at that, and identify the problem, what is driving the United States and NATO powers to yet another war in this oil rich and strategic region? A war, as Fidel has pointed out over and over again in his reflections, and as the Cuban media has tried to alert us, a war that could have catastrophic consequences not simply for the Iranians, not just for the people of the region but indeed for the entire world.

Let’s use Iran quickly as a case study and look at the facts. Because from those facts we can derive a pattern and an understanding of what is causing this, so we can have a remedy. The U.S. and Israel and the NATO powers are asserting that Iran is a nuclear menace or is about to become a nuclear menace to its neighbors and the world. But Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. Iran belongs to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is the most inspected country in the world, having IAEA monitors come in and roam around with video monitors on-site, individual inspections over and over again.

Iran has never started a war. At the same time, those who are menacing Iran, who are imposing economic sanctions of the most severe type, and who are preparing for overt and covert operations have ample numbers of nuclear weapons. The United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, 7,800 of which are deployed. The United States has spent $7 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1942. The United States is the only power in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons and it did so when it incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. The U.S. spends a trillion dollars a year on war, more than all the other countries in the world combined.

Israel, that treats Iran as an existential threat to its existence, has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, Israel does not belongs to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, does not allow IAEA inspectors into its country to monitor its nuclear programs.

Likewise, Britain and France have hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons. So if Iran isn’t really a nuclear menace, if Iran is simply a targeted country, what drives the endless animosity and antagonism against Iran? We in the ANSWER Coalition believe that the real reason that there is such animus against Iran and the growing danger of war is not because Iran has nuclear weapons, nor is it because of “human rights abuses.” The United States supports the most anti-democratic countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia for instance.

The real reason is, in 1979 Iran had a revolution. It overthrew the proxy, puppet client government of the Shah, expelled the CIA from its positions of authority, was able to nationalize its own oil and take possession of that oil and use its resources for the development of Iran.

Iran has emerged over the last three decades in this resource-rich, geo-strategically important region as an independent government. And because it is an independent government it has been targeted by the former colonial powers and the imperialist powers for destruction.

When we look at what the source and danger of war is in the contemporary world, we have to identify the cause, not simply as the inability of people to live in peace, but the inability of a particular economic and social order, world capitalism, to live in peace. And in this case led by the US, as being unwilling to have a live-and-let-live attitude with other governments, should they try to assert their own independence, control their own land, labor and resources.

So we look at the past 60 years and you see in 1950 the US invaded Korea, and according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 million Koreans perished who would otherwise not have perished, Then 8 years later, the US launched the Vietnam war and millions of Vietnamese died.

In 1965 the US invaded the Dominican Republic. In 1982 the US invaded Lebanon and bombed it. In 1983, the US invaded Grenada. In 1989 it invaded Panama. In 1991 it invaded and bombed Iraq. In 1992 it intervened in Somalia under a humanitarian guise and 10,000 Somalis died. In 1995 the United States and NATO began bombing Bosnia. In 1999 they dropped 23,000 bombs and missiles on Yugoslavia until Kosovo was finally taken over by western powers. That was 1999. In 2001 there was the war in Afghanistan, in 2002 the invasion of Iraq, and in 2011 the bombing of Libya under the pretext of defending civilians under UN Resolution 1973.

If you look at this history of the last 60 years you can see that it is war after war after war by the same economic and social order that seeks to maintain the global status quo that allows it to aggregate its riches and keeps most of the world’s people in poverty.

So when we identify as the book does, the need to eliminate war, we have to eliminate the source and cause of war which we would say is world capitalism, which thrives on and makes war inevitable. That is the same economic order that puts profits first and environmental protection last, that removes all obstacles that remain in any way an impediment to the free flow of capital.

As we struggle for peace and struggle to save the planet, we have to recognize that the powerful forces of capitalist must be confronted not just in the periphery but here in the United States, where they have their central power and authority. We can see in the Occupy movement, we can see in the movements that are spreading around the world by poor people and working people and young people, the prospects for a new world, the prospects for change. As we fight income inequality, as we fight against the disparity that allows not just the 1% but the .1% who control so much, we must connect that struggle with the fight to save the planet from environmental catastrophe and from the scourge of endless war.

We thank the Cubans and the intellectuals who gathered in February in Havana. We hope to be able to promote this book. It’s out now in English as well as Spanish. It is a great opportunity to use this platform to bring the message of peace and environment protection and to root it in a bigger, more important and dominating political context.

http://www.we99.ir/en/index.php?pid=27&newsid=73

Occupy Tampa protester tests city ordinance in court

Occupy Tampa protester tests city ordinance in court
When 24-year-old Occupy Tampa protester Alicia Dion was arrested for trespassing at midnight in Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park in November, the police gave her "60 seconds of due process," her attorney argued in court Monday.
Publish Date: 28 March 2012 - 01:49

Tampa Bay Times, When 24-year-old Occupy Tampa protester Alicia Dion was arrested for trespassing at midnight in Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park in November, the police gave her "60 seconds of due process," her attorney argued in court Monday.

Constitutionally, that may have been plenty of time, suggested Hillsborough Circuit Judge John Conrad. The judge refused Monday to rule Dion's arrest was unconstitutional, but he gave her attorney more time to bolster arguments.

If Conrad upholds the arrest next month, it would confirm the ability of Tampa police to arrest protesters who sleep in public parks during the Republican National Convention in August. Convention organizers expect 10,000 to 15,000 protesters to come to Tampa.

"The judge made it clear, we don't need clarification," said Laura McElroy, a spokeswoman for the Tampa Police Department. "That city rule has been on the books for more than 30 years. It's been tested in court hundreds and hundreds of times."

Dion and her boyfriend, Kevin Flynn, 33, were among a small group of Occupy Tampa protesters who tested the city prohibition on Nov. 7. City parks are closed from sunset to sunrise, except during special events. At midnight, the protesters refused three warnings from police to leave the park. Police said the warnings took about a minute.

Dion's attorney Paul Horning argued that the park hours were not well posted. But the state noted that the trespassing ordinance is part of the city code and has long been enforced.

Conrad said the arrest would have been unconstitutional if Dion and the others had been arrested during normal park hours. "Is there a First Amendment right to protest in a park that's closed to the public?" he asked. The judge gave Horning until April 19 to submit further argument. A judge has yet to rule on the arrests of other protesters from that November night.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/3094/occupy-tampa-protester-tests-city-ordinance-in-court

Wall Street firms admit poor public image and Occupy impact

Wall Street firms admit poor public image and Occupy impact
A new study has revealed that over half Wall Street company executives believe the Occupy movement has had an impact on their business. Up to 94 per cent say their firms got a negative public reaction by action or inaction.
Publish Date: 28 March 2012 - 00:58

RT, The results of the study, commissioned by Makovsky, an integrated communications firm, do come as something of a surprise. The majority of the surveyed personnel think a negative public perception is the key challenge to be overcome in the next year, while previously they were more worried about recovery and stabilization.

"There has been a shift in priority from recovering and stabilizing to focusing on customer satisfaction, employee communications and improving public perception,” said Scott Tagney, executive vice president and head of financial services at Makovsky "Our study reveals that companies are in transition, and this new strategy involves both external and internal integrated communications efforts.”

Eighty-one per cent of those surveyed said they were worried about public reaction to executive compensation in the industry, while about 74 per cent believe increased regulation of the financial market would help the companies build a better public image.

The surveyed personnel also believe that their reputation wasn’t boosted by the use of social media. The majority of the executives said these efforts had a neutral impact, while only 40 per cent noted that it was positive.

"We see social media as an emerging communications channel and solution for financial services firms and with regulatory bodies continuing to soften guidelines, social media will grow in importance, especially to improve public perception and connect with customers,” Tagney predicted.

‘Occupy Wall Street affected businesses’

How do the executives view the impact of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement? About 53 per cent noted that their companies had been affected by the movement, while only 38 per cent said they were surprised by it. The study also showed that most of the surveyed personnel believe OWS is here to stay, with 71 per cent saying they expect it to continue beyond the presidential election this fall.

"With the six-month anniversary of the movement sparking a resurgence, the consensus is that Occupy Wall Street is not going away anytime soon, and financial services executives need to be better prepared to address this issue moving forward,” Tagney said.

So the study does reveal something new. Executives are now not as concerned with recovery and stabilization and are focusing their attention on public perception. But will they be brave enough to tackle the issues put forward by the Occupy Wall Street movement and use social media to get the public’s feedback?

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/3090/wall-street-firms-admit-poor-public-image-and-occupy-impact

U.S. urges court to stay out of decision on Iranian group

U.S. urges court to stay out of decision on Iranian group
The Obama administration on Monday urged a U.S. appeals court not to interfere with its review and decision-making process over whether to remove the Iranian dissident group Mujahadin-e Khalq from a U.S. terrorism blacklist.
Publish Date: 28 March 2012 - 01:28

Reuters, The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order the State Department to either remove it from the list or require action within a specified period on its request to delist the group.

The State Department urged the court to stay out of the matter, saying it was continuing to evaluate the matter, consulting with the intelligence community and other government agencies and that it had met with representatives of the Mujahadin-e Khalq.

Further, in its reply to the appeals court, the department repeated what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month to U.S. lawmakers: that they were closely watching the group's cooperation in closing its Camp Ashraf base in Iraq.

The group, which calls for the overthrow of Iran's Islamist government, has been based in Iraq. It was supported by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but is no longer welcome in Iraq under the Shi'ite-led government that came to power following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and Saddam's downfall.

The Iraqi government plans to expel the residents of Camp Ashraf and is in the process of moving them to a processing center at a former U.S. military base in Baghdad.

Camp residents, who numbered about 3,000 and had been under the protection of the U.S. forces since 2003, agreed to be moved last month. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in December.

Also known as the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran, the group led a guerilla campaign against the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran during the 1970s that included attacks on U.S. targets.

As a result, the United States placed it on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The group has said that it has renounced violence.

BAN ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Americans are banned from providing financial and other support to any group included on the so-called "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list, and its members or representatives are banned from entering the United States.

Representatives for the group, which has also received support from several former senior U.S. government officials, had urged the court to intervene and force the administration to act or take the step itself of removing the group from the list.

"Such relief would - despite the PMOI's long history of terrorism - remove an important barrier to the PMOI's ability to operate freely in the United States, and is clearly unwarranted here," the State Department told the court.

"Moreover, an order directing the Secretary to act by a particular date is also inappropriate given the highly complex and delicate overall nature of the matter pending before her," it said.

The State Department also warned that court action "would seriously interfere" with its efforts to resolve the Camp Ashraf situation.

A lawyer for Iranian opposition group, Viet Dinh, said that they would respond by the April 2 deadline set by the court.

"The important thing to recognize from the brief is that the Secretary recognizes her responsibility to delist the PMOI if it does not meet the statutory criteria, and she does not have any discretion to keep the group on the list simply out of national security concerns," he told Reuters.

The appeals court has deferred a decision on whether it will hear oral arguments in the matter.

The case is In re: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 12-1118.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/3092/us-urges-court-to-stay-out-of-decision-on-iranian-group

Occupy Atlanta Claims Partial Victory in AT&T Protest

Occupy Atlanta Claims Partial Victory in AT&T Protest
The coalition claims that the pressure they put on AT&T resulted in a reduction of layoffs from 740 jobs to 485 jobs, therefore, saving 255 jobs.
Publish Date: 28 March 2012 - 00:46

APN, Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 3204, and Atlanta Jobs with Justice announced a historic victory in preventing over 250 layoffs at AT&T.

The coalition claims that the pressure they put on AT&T resulted in a reduction of layoffs from 740 jobs to 485 jobs, therefore, saving 255 jobs. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson's 27 million dollar salary was also cut by two million dollars.

AT&T has kept their public door locked since the occupation began on February 13, 2012.

"We are going to give AT&T a break for now and let them open their public doors. If they pull anything in the future, we will be back here if they mess with any of these workers,” Ben Speight, organizing director with Teamsters Local 728, said.

"AT&T has rescinded 255 jobs and that has never occurred in the past. It's clear that through the collaboration of Occupy Atlanta, CWA, and Jobs with Justice that is why these layoffs were rescinded and that is why they had the lowest surplus announcement on March 15th," Roger Sikes, with Atlanta Jobs with Justice, said.

As reported earlier by Atlanta Progressive News, Occupy Atlanta has been camped out on the sidewalk at AT&T's Midtown headquarters, since February 13, when twelve people held a sit-in and were arrested while protesting the announced layoffs of 740 employees in the Southeast US.

The next day, hundreds of community supporters rallied outside the AT&T complex, demanding that AT&T stop the layoffs and those scheduled to occur on March 15, 2012.

"We were prepared to escalate this campaign by setting up camps in Birmingham, Savannah, and Chattanooga. The Occupy movements there were ready to go but because of these wins we are going to hold off on that," Tim Franzen, with Occupy Atlanta, said.

There was a special recognition for Copper, a homeless man who ran the tent camp twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, during the 42 day occupation, and helped make it a success. "We don't cry, we don't lie, we just occupy," Copper said.

"Power to the people," Johnny Money, another homeless man, who also helped in Occupy's successful tent camp, said.

Antonio Parsons, an AT&T worker who was moved from his position in Atlanta and transferred to Augusta said, "The sacrifices these people made and the media spotlight they brought along with the CWA and Teamsters backing Occupy, I'm sure that had an effect on helping to save jobs.”

"This puts all corporations on notice that anyone considering layoffs must consider the ramifications because no longer will it cost you nothing to lay folks off. People will stand up, speak up, and sit-in to make sure they have a job and a healthy democracy," Ron Allen, with Occupy Atlanta, said. "We attacked the wealth disparity right here at ground zero at AT&T."

Occupy began to break down the tents and load them onto trucks but, akin to one’s favorite superhero, will reappear again where injustice appears.

Besides the AT&T victory, other Occupy Atlanta successes include saving a 108 year-old church in Atlanta’s Vine City, the Higher Ground Empowerment Center; and the Riverdale home of Bridgett Walker, a veteran from the US Invasion of Iraq, from foreclosure. In both cases, they got the banks to renegotiate the mortgages to much lower rates that were affordable.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/3089/occupy-atlanta-claims-partial-victory-in-at&t-protest

#N17, #M17, #M24: Why the Occupy Movement Needs Days of Action

#N17, #M17, #M24: Why the Occupy Movement Needs Days of Action
By Chris Longenecker Sourced from Waging Nonviolence
Posted at March 21, 2012, 7:26 am

As I sit in the New York City Police Department’s central booking, which has become my second home over the course of the last 48 hours, I’m reminded again why we keep mounting days of action and protest. Since last Saturday’sattempt to re-occupy Liberty Square, my role as an organizer in the Occupy movement feels more and more like it did back in the late fall. While doing jail support for arrested and brutalized comrades, my phone has been ringing and buzzing relentlessly with inquiries from fellow Occupiers, press, community-based organizations and union allies. Members of our movement, emboldened by #M17, have been living, sleeping and organizing in Union Square for the last two days, an occupation that continues as I write. It is safe to say that spring is here and that, once again, we have a day of action to thank for this resurgence.

An impromptu Direct Action Working Group meeting on the steps of the courthouse on Sunday turned into an hours-long whirlwind of organizing, regained momentum and vigor. We quickly reached consensus to acknowledge that the unwarranted acts of barbarism which ended Saturday’s celebration of the movement’s 6-month anniversary are not exceptions under Ray Kelly’s NYPD, but the rule. Systemically marginalized communities all over New York City live in fear of Kelly and his cronies every second of their lives. Plans were made to host a press conference on the steps on 1 Police Plaza at noon on Tuesday to highlight this reality. Speakers have been invited from the Muslim community, the homeless community, the LGBTQI community, communities of color, sex workers, the Occupy movement and countless others, to attest to the NYPD’s ongoing assault on the people of New York.

Plans are also being made to strike back on Saturday the 24th with a broad coalition of people from all over the city in solidarity against the capitalists and their servants in the police force, which the one-percenter mayor has accurately described as “my own army.” This Saturday, with our allies from labor and community-based organizations all over the city, we will demand the resignation of Ray Kelly and an end to the prison-industrial complex that has buried us in a climate of fear for far too long.

After #M17, the arguments of those who have discouraged such single days of action ring emptier in my ears than ever. Critics assume that days of mass action can only happen through mobilizations that bring activists to unfamiliar cities where they have no roots. They assert that mass actions don’t really inspire people to effective resistance against the 1 percent. They see these days as a distraction from long-term campaigns and the building of new institutions. As someone who has helped organize many of our mass days of action at Occupy Wall Street, I disagree.

Days of mass action are about more than simply what happens on the day of; the preparations for them are campaigns unto themselves. They are about coalition-building, outreach, engagement, solidarity and showing strength. The process of planning our May 1 “Day without the 99%” and general strike, for instance, has brought us much closer to allies in the immigrant worker justice movement and the labor movement than we would have imagined three months ago. Together, we’re organizing a unified solidarity march at the end of the day, which is unheard of in recent May Day history here in New York. After the march there will be a series of more aggressive direct actions by Occupy Wall Street, which our partners are prepared to back with their words and defend with their bodies. Working with us on the basis of mutual respect, many of our coalition partners are starting to organize themselves using modified consensus models, against the grain of the hierarchies in their own organizations. By cultivating these relationships over time, we can work toward a day when we have the capacity to simultaneously occupy all our workplaces and hold all the power in assemblies of our own making, peacefully subverting the system from within.

One of the most distinctive features of the nascent Occupy movement lies in its local character. General assemblies and direct-action networks are forming spontaneously in cities, towns and neighborhoods across the country. They are being created by residents and are tackling local issues in ways that speak to their own communities. Unlike the trend in the global justice movement of a decade ago, the mass days of action coming out of the Occupy movement do not ask people to converge at a single unfamiliar city. Our days of action — like the “Day of Rage” on October 15, #N17, the West Coast Port Shutdown and the May Day general strike — ask communities to adopt the call as they see fit. These days thereby become conduits through which we forge a movement that is both diverse and coordinated.

#M17 illustrated last weekend with incredible clarity that single, unified days of action are powerful tools in our arsenal as activists working to bring down an economic and political system that serves only the elite. On days of action, we can disrupt these forces, show our solidarity with one another, build revolutionary coalitions, expand our base and draw media attention to the injustices we oppose. #M17 was just the latest in this ongoing struggle. On Saturday, #M24, we will strike back once more in what is likely to be our biggest action since November, as we demand the immediate resignation of Ray Kelly and an end to the police state and capitalist tyranny.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/864975/%23n17%2C_%23m17%2C_%23m24%3A_why_the_occupy_movement_needs_days_of_action/#paragraph2

What's to Come for the "99% Spring"

What's to Come for the "99% Spring"
By Anna Lekas Miller Sourced from AlterNet
Posted at March 21, 2012, 1:01 pm

During the week of April 9-15, more than 60 progressive groups throughout the country are converging to host the "99% Spring," where they plan to train 100,000 young activists in non-violent direct action and civil disobedience. The goal of the trainings is to give young activists from across the country tools to organize actions that continue and build upon the recent progressive organizing and successes of the Wisconsin uprisings, the Keystone XL Pipeline resistance, and Occupy Wall Street.

"Though many young activists may have read about leaders like Cesar Chavez or the civil rights movement, many have never been formally trained in non-violent direct action. We see this as an opportunity to train young leaders to organize and take back our country," co-cordinator Liz Butler mentioned.

After the trainings, a series of actions -- collectively referred to as the "Shareholder's Spring" -- will be held to disrupt the shareholder meetings of over forty corporations, including but not limited to Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron. In addition to these actions specifically targeting corporate power, the 99% Spring plans to organize anti-foreclosure home occupations and a series of student-lead actions against Sallie Mae and other corporations that have rigged and grossly profited off of the student debt crisis.

Though there are many ideological overlaps and alliances between the 99% Spring and Occupy Wall Street -- the name notwithstanding -- the 99% Spring is not a brainchild of the occupy movement. It is an effort by organizations such as Jobs With Justice, Move On, New Organizing Institute, Communication Workers Alliance, National People's Action and several other progressive groups to coalesce community organizations with organized labor to organize a series of direct actions that add to the progressive fervor of the Spring to come.

Over 700 trainings will be held in 48 states. Visit http://www.the99springs.com to sign up to lead, host or attend a training and learn more about the actions to come.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/865421/what%27s_to_come_for_the_%2299_spring%22/

Calling for Police Commissioner's Resignation, Occupy Wall Street Teams Up With Victims of NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk

Calling for Police Commissioner's Resignation, Occupy Wall Street Teams Up With Victims of NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk
A rally on Tuesday increased the public pressure on Commissioner Ray Kelly and the NYPD following a series of recent controversies over police tactics.
The Guardian / By Ryan Devereaux
Ryan Devereaux is a New York based reporter for The Guardian.

March 20, 2012 Occupy Wall Street protesters have issued a joint call with members of New York City's black, Latino and Muslim communities for New York City's police commissioner to resign.



A rally on Tuesday increased the public pressure on Commissioner Ray Kelly and the NYPD following a series of recent controversies over the policing of Occupy protests, surveillance of Muslim communities and the use of stop-and-frisk powers.

The rally was inspired by Saturday's mass arrest of at least 73 Occupy protesters in lower Manhattan. Many Occupiers have described the evening as one of the most violent police crackdowns since the movement began in September.

Occupy's response to the weekend's events was to call on communities who have also expressed frustration with NYPD policies and tactics. A further rally and mass action is planned for Saturday.

Tuesday's event began with a silent march from Foley Square to the NYPD's headquarters at One Police Plaza.

Roughly 100 activists walked with their hands bound behind their backs in flex cuffs, many with tape over their mouths. At the front of the march demonstrators held a large banner that read "Kelly must resign." In a demonstration that was equal parts somber and emotional, activists denounced the department as violent and racially biased.

After arriving at NYPD headquarters, juvenile justice activist Chino Hardin told the rally: "Real community safety does not begin with NYPD. It begins with the community. You wanna know how to keep us safe? Ask us!" A convicted felon, Hardin now works with the Center for New Leadership, an organization run by formerly incarcerated individuals.

Hardin targeted the department's widespread use of stop, question and frisk tactics. The controversial searches have increased over 600% in the last 10 years. Commissioner Kelly and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg say the stops keep weapons off the streets and save the lives of young men of color.

Critics say the practice is an institutionalized violation of fourth amendment rights that yields marginal results while disproportionately impacting the very group the mayor and commissioner say it protects.

"Yeah, I'm angry," Hardin added. "I'm angry because every time I look around there's a black or Latino boy or girl being illegally searched. Every time I turn on the news you portray us to be animals."

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, has been a vocal critic of the NYPD's recently-exposed practice of monitoring Muslim Americans based on religion. Sarsour called on Occupy Wall Street's supporters to, "stand up and say no. Stop spying and harassing and intimidating the Muslim community for being Muslim."

"I commit myself and our community to the Occupy Wall Street movement and look for your solidarity with our community," she said.

In the days that have followed Saturday's crackdown, an increasing number of allegations of serious police abuse have surfaced. Occupiers are quick to add, however, that their experiences pale in comparison to the lives of individuals living in low-income communities and and communities of color.

Addressing the crowd on Tuesday, Occupier Jennifer Waler, who was arrested on Saturday, said a police officer threatened to Tase her and take her to a psychiatric ward because she was singing in her jail cell.

"Yes, on Saturday the police were brutal," Waller said. "This is just the tip of the iceberg."

"In Harlem they beat and arrest people just for walking down the street. In the Bronx they shoot people point blank in their own bathroom," she added, referring to the police shooting of unarmed 19 year-old Ramarley Graham in February.

"The NYPD surveils, targets and entraps Muslim people, creating convoluted schemes to legitimize the war on terror through racist policing, and they never ever pay a price," she went on to say.

Occupier Jose Whelan, agreed that the issue of police violence extends beyond the treatment of Occupy Wall Street protesters. On Saturday night, Whelan's arrest drew attention from around the country, as photos showed a massive crack in glass door that a police officer threw him into.

Whelan was arrested for disorderly conduct while standing on a public sidewalk in an incident witnessed by the Guardian. He was punched in the face multiple times. It came without warning, Whelan said.

"They just grabbed me and started punching me. Nothing like, 'You're under arrest.' Nothing like, 'Put your hands behind your back'."

Whelan sees the opposition to police violence described at Tuesday's event as an interconnected struggle that predates Occupy Wall Street by generations.

"The work we've been doing for a long time in Occupy is really trying to connect to the groups who've been doing it for a really long time. There's community organizations here that have been doing it for 30 years, tirelessly, in the communities that are much more strongly effected, that don't have a team of cameras and a team of jail support and a team of lawyers behind them when this stuff happens. And this stuff happens every single night in New York City.

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/154628/calling_for_police_commissioner?page=entire

Police Arrest 73 in Occupy Wall Street Crackdown as Protesters Mark Six Months Since Uprising Began

Police Arrest 73 in Occupy Wall Street Crackdown as Protesters Mark Six Months Since Uprising Began
March 19, 2012

Michael Moore led hundreds of people from the Left Forum conference to Zuccotti Park on Saturday where hundreds had gathered to reoccupy the park to mark six months since the launch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began last September and launched protests around the world that gave voice to "the 99 percent." That night, New York City police officers cleared the park, making at least 73 arrests. Many people reported excessive use of force by officers; several cases were caught on camera. In one widely reported incident, a young woman suffered a seizure after she was pulled from the crowd and arrested. Witnesses say police initially ignored Cecily McMillan as she flopped about on the sidewalk with her hands zip-tied behind her back, but she was eventually taken away in an ambulance. For more, we talk to Guardian reporter Ryan Devereaux, who has been following the Occupy movement closely. [includes rush transcript]

Filed under Occupy Wall Street, Police brutality, Protests

Guest: Ryan Devereaux, a journalist for The Guardian and a former Democracy Now! fellow who has been reporting on Occupy Wall Street.

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: This weekend marked six months since the launch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began last September 17th and launched protests around the world that gave voice to "the 99 percent." Activists in New York City marked the occasion by attempting to reoccupy the movement’s birthplace: Zuccotti Park, renamed "Liberty Plaza." A protest there Saturday drew more than hundreds of people, and included street theater and dancing.

But police were also on the scene and appeared determined to stop any attempts to re-establish the Occupy encampment. At least 73 people were arrested. Many reported excessive use of force by officers with the New York Police Department. This is a protester describing what happened after activists tried to set up tents in Zuccotti Park Saturday night.

PROTESTER: Some people wanted to reoccupy the park, so people were out here with their sleeping bags, and there were a few tents. The officers basically came into the park and smashed the tarp down that people were lying under, and they began trying to arrest people.

AMY GOODMAN: In one widely reported incident, a young woman suffered a seizure after she was pulled from the crowd and arrested. Witnesses say police initially ignored Cecily McMillan as she flopped about on the sidewalk with her hands zip-tied behind her back, but she was eventually taken away in an ambulance.

Meanwhile, not far from the park, thousands of activists and intellectuals gathered at the Left Forum this weekend to discuss the theme "Occupying the System." Renowned independent filmmaker and activist Michael Moore headlined the event Saturday. He said he had never seen a movement spread with greater speed than Occupy Wall Street.

MICHAEL MOORE: I have never seen a political or a social movement catch fire this fast than this one. And, you know, I’m in my fifties, so I’ve lived through enough of them and knew about those that came before me. And what’s so incredible about this movement is that people have—it was—really, it hasn’t taken six months. It really just took a few weeks before they started to take polls of people, Americans, and they found that the majority of Americans supported the principles of the Occupy movement. This was back in October.

And then they took another poll, and it said 72 percent of the American public believes taxes should be raised on the rich. Seventy-two percent. I mean, I don’t think there was ever a poll that showed a majority in favor of raising taxes on the rich, because up until recently, a vast majority of our fellow Americans believed in the Horatio Alger theory, that anyone in America can make it, it’s an even and level playing field. And now they—the majority, at least, vast majority—know that that’s a lie. They know that there’s no truth to that whatsoever. They know that the game is rigged. And they know that they don’t have the same wherewithal on that playing field that the wealthy have.

AMY GOODMAN: At the end of his speech, Michael Moore urged people to join the movement and go down to Zuccotti Park.

MICHAEL MOORE: I really want to encourage you to not let this moment slip by. Our ship has really come in. The spotlight is on Occupy Wall Street. And I think—I think this is our—this is our invitation to head over to Zuccotti Park. It’s a 10-minute—it’s a 10-minute walk. Five minutes if you’re young. Huh?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: [inaudible]

MICHAEL MOORE: All right. So, go ahead, start the banner. And again, thank you, everybody, for coming here tonight. Let’s not—let’s not lose the moment. The moment is ours and our fellow Americans’. Thank you. Occupy Wall Street!

AMY GOODMAN: Hundreds heeded Michael Moore’s call and helped swell the ranks of the Occupy protest Saturday night. Democracy Now! correspondent and now Guardian reporter Ryan Devereaux tweeted, quote, "Today’s events feel like any given day last fall with #OWS."

Well, Ryan joins us now to talk more about Occupy Wall Street. We’re also joined by two of the people who led a discussion at the Left Forum about strategic directions for the Occupy movement: Frances Fox Piven, professor of political science and sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York, author of Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America, a frequent target of right-wing pundits; and in D.C., we’re joined by Stephen Lerner, the architect of the Justice for Janitors campaign, on the executive board of the Service Employees International Union, has been working with labor and community groups nationally on how to hold Wall Street accountable.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Ryan, let’s begin with you with an update on what took place on Saturday night.

RYAN DEVEREAUX: Well, on Saturday night, protesters had been in the park since about 1:00 in the afternoon, and it had been a day that had been marked with some tension, but also a lot of joy. People were really enjoying the opportunity to be in the park again to talk to each other, to meet new people and discuss issues. At about 11:30, though, a representative from Brookfield Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, said that he was working with Brookfield security, made an announcement that people had to leave the park because they were violating the rules. I asked him what rules they were violating. He said that they had brought in sleeping equipment and erected structures in the park, and these were violations of the rules. He made this announcement via megaphone, but he was drowned out by protesters. And I should say that the structures that I witnessed were a tarp that was strung over a cord tied between two trees, and protesters also had—they had symbolic tents up on polls that they were carrying around. It wasn’t as if they had created a tent city in the park or anything like that.

But the protesters decided to stand their ground, and the police moved in, in lieu of the Brookfield security. And it was rows upon rows of police officers coming into the park through the front entrance, coming down the stairs. And the protesters, dozens of them who chose to stand their ground, were gathered in the center of the park. Their arms and legs were locked. They were sitting in planters right there in the middle of Zuccotti. And the police moved in to break them apart. It was a violent scene, by just about all accounts, police ripping protesters apart from each other, people being hit, people being dragged across the ground, multiple reports of young women being pulled by their hair across the ground. I saw a young woman writhing on the ground in pain with a white-shirted police officer standing over the top of her telling her to shut up. It was really gruesome. I talked to a lot of people who were there on the eviction on November 15th, and they said that the course of the day, you know, the interactions with the police and the protesters were the most violent they had seen. Following people being pulled out of the park, you know, dozens of arrests, there was a winding march through the city, which resulted in, you know, a handful of—a handful more arrests.

What was really disturbing for a lot of people that were there on the scene was one incident with a young woman named Cecily McMillan who, witnesses say, suffered from a seizure. She was handcuffed in the street sidewalk area near the entrance to the park. She was on the ground. Videotape seems to show her convulsing. You can hear people screaming to help her, to call 911. Witnesses that were there said that it took approximately 22 to 23 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. People were really disturbed that there were hundreds of police officers there and no paramedics, and also disturbed by the fact that you see a number of police officers standing around this young woman as she’s convulsing, and no one seems to be doing much of anything. I spoke to a young man who said he was a paramedic in—an EMT in Florida, who was disgusted by the way that McMillan was treated. He said her head wasn’t supported. Numerous witnesses that I spoke to said that her head was bouncing off the concrete. The paramedics said that she could have easily died. McMillan was taken from the scene by ambulance to a local hospital and then transferred to police custody.

AMY GOODMAN: Did they take the handcuffs off of her?

RYAN DEVEREAUX: Eventually they took the handcuffs off, but it was quite some time she was on the ground convulsing in handcuffs. And people were screaming to let her loose, take the handcuffs off, stabilize her. People felt like it didn’t seem like the officers knew what they were—what they needed to do to handle her.

AMY GOODMAN: Is she in jail now or the hospital?

RYAN DEVEREAUX: She’s in jail now, as far as we know. Attorneys with the National Lawyers Guild are particularly concerned because, despite repeated efforts, they haven’t been able to speak to her. These attorneys have told me that in most cases, it would be easy for them to speak to a potential client, to speak to someone who is—you know, who’s in police custody but has been hospitalized. But those efforts have been stopped. It’s unclear exactly why. The police have released a video that they claim shows McMillan hitting an officer, hitting a police officer, shortly before her seizure. I don’t fully understand how that relates to her care or, you know, why it was that she wasn’t taken to the hospital. It seems irrelevant, and it doesn’t seem to address the issue of why she hasn’t been able to speak to an attorney. We do know that she is charged with a felony, but it is unclear what exactly those charges are, because, again, the attorneys haven’t been able to speak to her.

AMY GOODMAN: But she was—eventually, an ambulance came?

RYAN DEVEREAUX: Eventually an ambulance came.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of healthcare, what happened to the Occupy medic?

RYAN DEVEREAUX: This was after protesters were cleared out of the park. An Occupy medic, who, by most accounts, from people that I spoke to, is a soft-spoken, pretty nice young guy, was grabbed by police for reasons that are unclear to me. He was directly in front of me at the moment that he was grabbed, and he was thrown into a glass door. Some people said that his head hit the door, but I was standing there, and I couldn’t tell what part of his body hit the door. But it was a massive crack left in this glass door. People were shocked at the force that was used. The young man, as he was being pulled away by police officers, looked me in the eye and said that he had been punched in the face. I asked photographers there on the scene. They said he had been punched in the face multiple times.

And this was something that, you know, repeated people—repeatedly I heard accounts of people who said that they had been hit in the face. I heard accounts of protesters saying that they were directly verbally threatened by police officers. I saw a high level of intimidation from a number of police officers towards protesters. And it should be said that there were police officers who seemed to be making an effort, or at least just trying to do their job, but it is the guys who go out of their way to not be like that that tend to stand out and that tend to scare people and tend to hurt people. And, you know, protesters were saying that this was really an ugly scene. The attorneys who were looking at cases that are developing out of these arrests are saying that they’re seeing more resisting arrest charges, which they tell me often sort of is code word for fighting with police officers or police officers beating someone up.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, and then we’re going to come back. Ryan Devereaux with The Guardian now, used to be a fellow here at Democracy Now! It’s great to have you back. We’ll also be joined by Frances Fox Piven and Stephen Lerner in a moment.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/19/police_arrest_73_in_occupy_wall

Gas prices rise; Obama's approval rating sinks

Gas prices rise; Obama's approval rating sinks
Obama's approval rating is down to 46% in the survey, in large part because of one issue: rising gas prices.
Publish Date: 13 March 2012 - 23:23



USATODAY--Obama's approval rating is down to 46% in the survey, in large part because of one issue: rising gas prices.
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard," the Post reports. "Just 26% approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll."

That explains a recent spate of Obama speeches on the subject of energy, stressing an "all-of-the-above" strategy that includes development of alternative sources beyond oil.

It also explains the release of a report today touting the president's record on new sources of energy.

"Despite the gains we've made, today's high gas prices are a painful reminder that there's much more work to do free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and take control of our energy future," Obama said in a statement. "And that's exactly what our administration is committed to doing in the months ahead."

Obama plans to discuss his "blueprint for a secure energy future" in interviews with television anchors from Los Angeles, Denver, Austin, Des Moines, Orlando, Cincinnati, Las Vegas and Pittsburgh.

Note the plurality of swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and Pittsburgh.

Republicans pointed out that Obama has discussed energy for a long time, but if the Post/ABC poll is any guide, it's not working so well.

"For three years, President Obama failed to put forward a comprehensive energy plan, and today Americans are reeling from the consequences as gas prices continue to soar," said Republican Party spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski.

Here is Obama's full statement on his administration's energy report:

The progress report I received today from members of my administration underscores the headway our nation has made towards reducing our reliance on foreign oil, while also expanding American made energy.

As the report highlights, we have made progress, with imports of foreign oil decreasing by a million barrels a day in the last year alone.

Our focus on increased domestic oil and gas production, currently at an eight year high, combined with the historic fuel economy standards we put in place, means that we will continue to reduce our nation's vulnerability to the ups and downs of the global oil market.

We've also made progress in the expansion of clean energy, with renewable energy from sources like wind and solar on track to double, along with the construction of our first advanced bio-fuel refineries.

And yet, despite the gains we've made, today's high gas prices are a painful reminder that there's much more work to do free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and take control of our energy future. And that's exactly what our administration is committed to doing in the months ahead.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2902/gas-prices-rise-obamas-approval-rating-sinks

U.S. mass transit use up with gas prices, economy

U.S. mass transit use up with gas prices, economy
Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation in 2011, the second-highest total since 1957, as gasoline prices rose and the economy improved, an industry group said on Monday.
Publish Date: 13 March 2012 - 22:51



Reuters--Only in 2008, when gasoline rose to more than $4 a gallon, did ridership beat 2011's total, the American Public Transportation Association said in a statement.

Ridership was up 2.3 percent last year from 2010, with the increase spread across large, medium and small communities.

"Two top reasons for the increased ridership are higher gas prices and in certain areas, a recovering economy with more people returning to work," Michael Melaniphy, the association's president and chief executive, said in the statement.

The fastest pace of growth was in rural communities with populations under 100,000, with an increase of 5.4 percent.

Light rail ridership increased 4.9 percent in 2011, with increases of 37.2 percent for Seattle and 31.2 percent in Dallas.

Ridership for subways and elevated trains was up 3.3 percent and commuter rail ridership rose 2.5 percent. Large bus systems reported an increase of 0.4 percent nationally.

The report comes as the association is holding its legislative conference in Washington to meet with lawmakers and regulators.

Federal funding for transportation projects, including mass transit, is set to expire at the end of March and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a two-year, $109 billion authorization bill on Tuesday.

A House of Representatives transportation bill calling for $260 billion in spending over five years failed to gain support. House Speaker John Boehner said last week he was willing to take up the Senate measure instead.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2897/us-mass-transit-use-up-with-gas-prices,-economy

The Occupy movement: growing in the class struggle

The Occupy movement: growing in the class struggle
The Occupy movement has acted to prevent foreclosures.
Source: Party for Socialism and Liberty (PSL) - editorial
Date: November 15, 2011


[The following was published in Liberation newspaper just before the unanticipated late night raid on Occupy Wall Street.]

Facing foreclosure and in desperate need of help, Monique White turned to Occupy Minnesota, which had declared its opposition to the big banks. “I went down [to the General Assembly] and basically told my story,” White explained, “and they were willing to … help me in every way possible to keep my home.” Since then, the occupiers have been staying on the property to physically block her eviction. “If they want to take Monique out of her home, they’ll have to take me with her,” occupier Nick Espinosa told a local paper.

The Occupy movement has now experimented with a variety of tactics beyond the encampment of public plazas—the physical occupations of homes at risk of eviction and foreclosure, a general strike, support for picketing workers, student walk-outs and marches against police brutality. Taken together, these point the way towards a strategic vision for the movement to clarify its aims, widen its base of support, and build leadership among students, workers and communities hardest hit by the capitalist economic crisis.

The home occupation in Minnesota is far from the only example of such action. OccupyMN had already succeeded in delaying another family’s foreclosure. In October, a group of activists stimulated by Occupy Wall Street shut down an auction on foreclosed homes in Brooklyn, allowing an elderly African American woman to remain in the house she has lived in for decades. In Harlem, a group of activists is “occupying the boiler room” of a low-income building until the heat is fixed. Occupy Oakland recently passed a resolution to support the occupation of foreclosed and abandoned properties.

These occupations throw into sharp relief the contradictions of capitalism, in which millions of people go without shelter while millions of homes sit empty. They directly challenge the rights of private property—and thus could potentially draw an even sharper response from the authorities than the park occupations. But it also could quickly become an unstoppable trend that brings the Occupy movement into every town and city across the country.

That’s not all. Occupy Oakland’s general strike call succeeded in closing one of the country’s busiest ports, issuing a profound reminder to the ruling class that the people have the power to shut it all down. It also sent a powerful message to occupations everywhere that the power of the 99% is in our numbers, and specifically in the organized working class. As with the largely student occupation of the Wisconsin capitol in February, the Occupy movement is starting to embolden labor unions and inspire their rank-and-file.

The 25,000 who marched in Oakland did so at a critical moment when the rulers nationwide were taking the offensive against the Occupy movement. This has been the pattern over and over—each time the movement appears to be on the defensive or at risk, mass demonstrations of strength have kept the local authorities at bay. The Nov. 17 Day of Action will undoubtedly reinforce this message, and with the police again cracking down in city after city, it comes not a moment too soon.

While more and more editorial boards of the corporate media are calling for the authorities to forcibly evict the Occupy movement, others have been forecasting that the occupations cannot withstand the winter. They are wrong.

They are wrong not just because they underestimate the resolve of the occupiers. (Occupy Wall Street remained, for instance, despite the mayor’s confiscation of their heat generators.) They are wrong also because they reduce the movement to a single tactic—the occupation of public squares. Indeed, while the poor weather poses a challenge to this tactic, it also presents an opportunity for the Occupy movement to take bold initiatives this winter, so that it can expand and grow stronger.

http://www.we99.ir/en/index.php?pid=27&newsid=60

Marine in Hot Water After Criticizing President Obama on Facebook

Marine in Hot Water After Criticizing President Obama on Facebook
Sergeant Gary Stein started a Facebook page, writing on it that he would not follow orders from the president.
Publish Date: 12 March 2012 - 18:18


FOXNEWS--A Marine may be in trouble for possibly violating military rules after criticizing President Obama on Facebook. Sergeant Gary Stein started a Facebook page, writing on it that he would not follow orders from the president.

Sgt. Stein said in a statement that he believes he has freedom of speech like everyone else, and that the "Constitution trumps everything else.” Legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Bob Massi joined America’s News HQ to talk about the case.

Lis disagrees with his statement saying that when people sign up for the military, they are prohibited from certain political speech. "Saying that you’re not going to follow the commander in chief when you’ve made a sworn statement … is at least skirting the line,” she contended.

Bob said there are protocols with the Department of Defense that prohibits military members from speaking out in this manner. "I think what the problem is that he identified himself in his Facebook as a military person. The question is what if he didn’t identify himself as a military person but said it as an individual citizen.”

According to Directive 1344 from the Department of Defense, "A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may … express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.”

Lis said that the problem is that he did mention that he has been an active duty Marine for eight years. Sgt. Stein clarified his statement later saying he meant he would not follow "unlawful” orders, but that wasn’t what was originally written.

What do you think, should military personnel have more freedom to express their opinions on political issues?

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2851/marine-in-hot-water-after-criticizing-president-obama-on-facebook

'Impeach Obama' Bill: Use of military without Congress approval 'high crime'

'Impeach Obama' Bill: Use of military without Congress approval 'high crime'
An American military attack on Syria could effectively lead to the impeachment of President Barack Obama. Congressmen say that any war without congressional authorization would be “unconstitutional”.
Publish Date: 12 March 2012 - 20:44


RT--Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. has come up with the resolution demanding Obama’s impeachment in case his administration starts another military action without the approval of Congress. This came as a reaction to the American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announcing that in order to carry out the offensive, the US military needs permission from the UN and NATO alone.

Jones’s resolution states that the prime authority to rule on the attack is the US Congress, but not international bodies be it NATO or UN.

"Expressing the sense of congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the constitution,” Jones’s resolution said.

In an exchange which occurred at the session of the Senate Armed Services Committee, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that in case Obama administration decides to strike Syria, it would merely "inform” Congress after the decision has been made.

"Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this,” Panetta said. "Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

Responding to Panetta, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said he was "breathless” to hear the statement.

"I am all for having international support, but I am really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. "They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the constitution.”

The Obama administration has allegedly started a fresh discussion on a possible military strike on Syria with its allies, the Washington Post reports. American officials have yet to confirm the report, saying that at this point they rule out military involvement in Syria’s internal conflict. There are reports that British and Qatari troops, as well as the CIA and Mossad, are already covertly involved with the Syrian conflict.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2865/impeach-obama-bill-use-of-military-without-congress-approval-high-crime

Why Are Gasoline Prices High And What Can Be Done About It?

Why Are Gasoline Prices High And What Can Be Done About It?
Publish Date: 11 March 2012 - 23:20

Policymakers often blame high gasoline prices on oil company profits, collusion, or speculators, but understanding what really goes into the cost of gasoline is key to understanding what the government could do to lower prices.


The American--Once again, high gasoline prices are in the news. As of this writing, the national average gasoline price per gallon is hovering around $3.79. The public is unhappy with the high gas prices, and politicians are scrambling to find ways to either claim they’ve done all they could; to disclaim responsibility; to distract the conversation; or, as is often the case in a presidential campaign, to blame the other guy.

In addition to triggering off a gusher of newspaper editorials, the price pinch at the pump is sparking serious consumer discomfort. SymphonyIRI reports that "57 percent of consumers are feeling increased financial strain when gas prices increase, and more than four in ten say high gas prices make it difficult to meet monthly expenses,” based on polls conducted in the second quarter of 2011. Furthermore, 49 percent of consumers plan to reduce grocery spending if gas prices climb another 50 cents.

The table below shows how consumers respond to higher gasoline prices.

Gallup polls show similar results. The most recent poll on the subject, conducted May 12-15, 2011, shows that increased gasoline prices caused severe financial hardship for 21 percent of respondents and moderate hardship for 46 percent, a total of 67 percent.

Moody’s Analytics data shows that the "average American household spends $3,348 of its after tax income on gasoline and diesel.” A 10 cent increase in gas prices translates to an extra $93.25 in gasoline and diesel expenditures per year for the average household, and deducts $11 billion from consumers in one year.

An Associated Press-Gfk survey conducted February 16-20, 2012, found that 58 percent of respondents disapproved of how President Obama has handled gas prices. Since December 2011, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline increased by 30 cents, during which time the percentage of people who called gas prices deeply important grew 6 percent to seven out of ten, and the percentage that views gas prices as extremely important went up 9 percent, to 39 percent. On March 6, 2012, or "Super Tuesday,” seven out of ten primary voters said gas prices were an "important” factor in their decision making.

So what’s behind gas prices?

Real gasoline prices, 1976–2012, in February 2012 dollars. Data from http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/realprices/.

Oil Supply and Demand

Setting aside conspiracy theories about oil company collusion—a perennial favorite of politicians of all stripes—the primary reason for high gasoline prices, as any economist will tell you, is very simple: world demand for oil (from which gasoline is made) is high, and the available supply is limited. The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price of gasoline varies over time, but in January 2012, it was 76 percent.

And what drives the price of oil? Many factors, according to the Energy Information Association:

Supply and demand in the world oil market are balanced through responses to price movements, and the factors underlying expectations for supply and demand are both numerous and complex. The key factors determining long-term expectations for oil supply, demand, and prices can be summarized in four broad categories: the economics of non-OPEC conventional liquids supply; OPEC investment and production decisions; the economics of unconventional liquids (such as oil from oil-sand or shale) supply; and world demand for liquids.

Back in 2006, the EIA observed that prices have risen since 2000 as a result of strong demand growth in developing economies (such as China), supply disruptions, and "inadequate investment to meet demand growth.”

Unrest in the Middle East is a perennial cause of worry over world oil supplies, and the recent explicit threats by Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz can’t be promoting confidence in oil consumer markets.

Another source of supply uncertainty is the moratorium that the Obama administration placed on U.S. development of domestic oil production in the last two years. Since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in 2010, U.S. domestic oil production has slowed significantly, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. The permitting slowdown as a result of the spill is estimated to have cost the United States $4.4 billion in output costs, 19,000 jobs, $1.1 billion in wages, and over $500 million in federal, state, and local government lost tax revenues. The Gulf Oil spill also caused a slowdown in the allotment of shallow-water drilling permits. A study by Bernard L. Weinstein at the Southern Methodist University looked at the effects of this slowdown in shallow-water permitting, and found that it will cost 50,000 jobs and U.S. income losses could exceed $12.5 billion.

But if 76 percent of the cost of gasoline is due to fluctuations in the price of crude, then 24 percent is due to something else, or a bunch of something elses. The Federal Trade Commission suggests that the other 24 percent of the cost of gasoline is influenced by a variety of supply and public policy factors. Some of the more significant factors follow.

Taxes

As the figure below shows, a significant share of the price people pay at the pump consists of federal and state taxes, and an array of fees associated with the production, processing, and transportation of oil and gas. Taxes, in fact, are nearly equal to the costs of refining, distribution, and marketing of gasoline. That fluctuates, of course, because most gas taxes are percentage based. Hence, they shrink as a proportion of cost when oil prices rise, but they remain significant. At $3.79/gallon, taxes account for about 53 cents.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=gasoline_factors_affecting_prices.

A Fractured Market

In order to fulfill air pollution reduction plans in states and localities across the country, gasoline sold in the United States has been fractionated into about 17 different boutique fuels sold in dozens of discrete markets. With three grades of gasoline per fuel, refiners are producing over 50 separate blends. Such boutique fuel requirements increase both price volatility and the height of price spikes as a function of the distance-to-market of boutique fuel producers and consumers, according to the Energy Information Administration. Boutique fuel requirements also increase the absolute price of gasoline sold in boutique markets, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Escalating Refinery Costs

Another factor that may have contributed to the increased price of gasoline is the reduction in the number of operating refineries in the United States over the last 30 years. The number and capacity of U.S. refineries peaked in 1981, and, since then, 171 plants have closed, although the remaining plants have increased output to offset a loss of production. Though most of this reduction has been caused by the low profit potential of refineries, others see a significant cause in "extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-backyard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.” Refinery profit margins have played a role in recent gasoline price hikes. The EIA suggests that "The sizable jump in retail prices this year reflects not only the higher average cost of crude oil compared to previous years, but also an increase in U.S. refining margins on gasoline (the difference between refinery wholesale gasoline prices and the average cost of crude oil) from an average of $0.34 per gallon in 2010 to $0.45 per gallon in 2011 and $0.42 per gallon in 2012.”

A Weak Dollar

In recent congressional testimony, Robert Murphy, of the Institute for Energy Research, observed:

Crude oil is traded in a world market. If the dollar falls against another currency, such as the euro, then either the euro-price of oil has to fall, or the dollar-price of oil has to rise, to eliminate arbitrage profits. From its peak in March 2009, the dollar has fallen 17 percent against other major currencies. Therefore, holding everything else constant, the dollar depreciation alone from early 2009 can explain a 20.5 percent increase in oil prices (quoted in dollars). Put differently, the oil price quoted in (say) Japanese yen has not risen as much since early 2009 as it has in U.S. dollars.

It is on the basis of such calculations that a recent Joint Economic Committee report estimated that Federal Reserve policies have added almost 57 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline for American motorists.

As (former AEI) economist Vincent Reinhart put it:

Indeed, both the net rise and the volatility of oil prices over the past nine months are partly a predictable byproduct of the Fed’s expansion of its balance sheet in its policy known as quantitative easing (QE).

Reinhart elaborates:

Since the Fed firmly signaled in August its intent to launch the latest round of QE, oil prices have risen from $76 to around $100 per barrel.

Why does the Fed’s balance sheet matter for oil prices? The producers of oil as well as other commodities typically sell their output in a worldwide market priced in U.S. dollars. Thus, they care about the current and expected future purchasing power of the dollar and how that will translate into goods and services back home. But QE has been associated with higher inflation and dollar depreciation, which combines to erode the purchasing power of the foreign producers of commodities. Thus, some of the rise in the nominal price of oil has been to catch up with that erosion.

Much more important in shaping near-term oil-price dynamics has been the nudge to investors from QE to move from safe to riskier investments. The commodity market has been one outlet for that reinvigorated search for yield. Investment flows into commodity-related vehicles has stepped up noticeably. This has been reinforced by the Fed’s policy of keeping short-term nominal interest rates near zero, which keeps it cheap to do some of that trading on borrowed funds. Such speculation neither produces nor consumes the commodity, so it should have no long lasting effect on prices. However, over short periods, it can fuel spasms of enthusiasm or angst that trigger wide swings in prices.

Some analysts believe that the Fed’s role is still more important:

Weakness in the U.S. currency feeds upward pressure on commodities, which are priced in dollars and thus come at a discount on the foreign markets. One result has been a surge higher in gasoline prices to nearly $4 a gallon before the summer driving season even starts, a trend that economists say will be aggravated as demand increases and the summer storm season threatens to disrupt oil supplies ... Using a model that combines "subtle rates of change" with movements in the dollar index and commodity prices, Hastings figures the low dollar is responsible for about one-third, or $1.31, of the total gas-at-the-pump cost.

Speculators

When explaining gasoline price hikes, policymakers point first to things like oil company profits, but lately, more attention has been paid to so-called "speculators:” people who buy oil futures as an investment, never intending to actually take possession of the oil that they have contracted for. In a Forbes article entitled "Oil Speculators Are Your Friends,” Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren show that, while speculation has been shown capable of causing short-term price spikes in the past, there is little evidence that speculation is a cause of oil price hikes since 2005. First, they observe that no evidence has emerged linking the real prices of oil to the prices being set in futures markets. Second, they point out that a sharp increase in the number of speculators also fails to show a correlation with real prices. Third, they find that rather than increasing price volatility, it turns out that speculation increases after price volatility manifests, and tends to damp it down: only two out of 26 studies of speculation showed increased price volatility after the onset of futures trading in commodity markets, while 14 out of 26 studies showed a decrease in commodity price volatility after trading markets were introduced.

Conclusion

The gas price consumers pay at the pump reflects the world price of oil, state and federal taxes, and other factors such as escalating refining costs, environmental regulations, and the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.

Understanding what goes into the cost of gasoline is key to understanding what the government could do to lower gasoline prices. While U.S. policy cannot affect the world price of oil much in either the short or long term (though policies aimed at reducing instability in oil-producing regions couldn’t hurt), policymakers do have other options that might reduce the cost of gasoline, including: tax holidays at the state and federal level; strong-dollar and inflation-control policies at the Federal Reserve; and relaxation, suspension, or simplification of environmental regulations that fragment markets, increase market fragility, and boost refining costs.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2825/why-are-gasoline-prices-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it

10 Myths About Iran—and Why They’re Dead Wrong

10 Myths About Iran—and Why They’re Dead Wrong
Iranians speak a different language than Iraqis.
Publish Date: 11 March 2012 - 23:44

truthdig.com--As media reports continue to imply that a military confrontation with Iran is closer than ever, rhetoric demonizing the Iranian government is rampant, particularly among Israeli leaders and most Republican presidential candidates—so much so that former Israeli Mossad director Efraim Halevy recently complained that Mitt Romney is "making the [Iran] situation worse” with his statements.

So it should come as no surprise that according to a 2012 Gallup poll, Iran is Americans’ "least favored nation” and has consistently ranked unfavorably since 1989. Gallup is not specific about why an overwhelming majority of respondents have such a low "overall opinion” of the Islamic Republic, but they suggest that "heavy scrutiny and criticism from the West over its nuclear programs” sheds light on American reasoning. Alarmist notions about Iran’s foreign and nuclear policy that spread through the media perpetuate a negative image that is oftentimes inaccurate—and help pave the path to war, which experts say would have disastrous consequences for Israel, the broader Middle East and the U.S.

AlterNet decided to look at 10 myths about Iran, many of them created by these alarmist notions—and explain why they’re dead wrong.

1. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

According to the Iranian government, the International Atomic Energy Agency and American intelligence assessments, the common assumption that Iran already has a nuclear bomb is wrong. Even Israeli intelligence agrees.
Yet 71 percent of Americans said "Yes” to the question, "Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?” in the last poll to ask that question. The question was asked a little over two years ago and public opinion could have become more accurately informed. Then again, when widely read newspapers like the Wall Street Journal publish weekly pieces suggesting that "evil” Iran is "building a nuclear bomb” (while justifying terrorism against Iranian citizens), and when Republican presidential contenders like Mitt Romney write that Iranian "Islamic fanatics” are "racing to build a nuclear bomb,” the truth can understandably become muddied for the average person.

2. Iran is not rushing to build a nuclear weapon.

The most prevalent suspicion about Iran is that it is trying to obtain breakout capability, or the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in a short period of time if it made the decision to do so. But that idea often results in unfounded alarmism about Iran’s nuclear program. Former Mideast-focused Pentagon official Colin Kahl told attendees during a packed Capitol Hill briefing in February that there’s a lot of "hyperbole and hyperventilation about Iran’s program” based on estimated timeframes about its alleged nuclear ambitions.

But Kahl emphasized that "timelines” estimating how quickly Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon depend on Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei making a "final decision” that "we have no evidence that he’s made, and we have every reason to believe we would detect if he did.” The Georgetown associate professor went on to point out that because of the very real existential threats the Iranians would face if they decided to start building a weapon, "we’re probably a number of years away” from the point at which Khamenei would "feel comfortable enough” in making that decision. According to nuclear nonproliferation expert Daryl Kimball, the main aim with Iran should accordingly be to affect Iranian "political will.”

Historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole also explained this week that Iran’s main decision-maker, Ali Khamenei, has consistently forbidden, on the basis of Islam, the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Cole says that if people believe Khamenei is being "dishonest,” they should prove it. Finally, as veteran Iran-focused journalist Scott Peterson recently illustrated, "breathless” assertions that Iran is speeding head-on toward nuclear capability "or worse” have been heard for decades while related predictions about imminent Iranian threats have "come and gone” unrealized.

3. Iran is not ruled by "irrational” leaders.

This is particularly true when it comes to Iranian foreign policy—and that’s according to America’s top-ranking military officer Gen. Martin Dempsey, who told CNN last month that the United States is "of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.” Former head of the Israeli Mossad Meir Dagan recently echoed that view, telling CBS that, "The regime in Iran is a very rational one.”

In January, director of National Intelligence James Clapper informed a Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran was using a "cost-benefit analysis” with its nuclear program decision-making process: "[I]f the decision has been made to press on with a nuclear weapon — and there are certain things they have not done yet to eventuate that — that this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis.” He added that the U.S. does not believe that the decision to build a nuclear weapon has been made by Iran’s leadership yet. And in February, the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "The [DIA] assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict”—another indication that Iran’s decision-making process is a calculated one.

4. Iran’s leadership wants to preserve their regime.

The Republican presidential candidates, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, frequently suggest that the Iranian government is committed to Israel’s "annihilation” even if that means their own end. But according to Mideast analyst Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress, the idea that Iran is a "martyr state” is a "myth” that "actually detracts from our ability to develop policies to effectively meet [the] challenge” of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapon ambitions. After being chided by Israeli leaders and American hawks for admitting that Iran is "rational,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey also said that it’s counterproductive to label Iran’s leadership with sweeping generalizations: "The key is to understand how they act and not trivialize their actions by attributing to them some irrationality.” Dempsey said framing the discussion about Iran in that way is a "dangerous thing for us to do” even if he doesn’t "agree” with Iranian decisions.

5. Iran’s leadership is not monolithic.

Rand Corporation senior analyst Alireza Nader said during a March 7 New America briefing that it’s "simply not true” that Iran is a "monolithic actor with a unified political system.” Rather, Nader noted that Iran’s leadership is actually fracturing, and that this was most recently exhibited by the sidelining of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the Supreme Leader and his allies after Ahmadinejad challenged him. This fact should also lay to rest any illusions that Ahmadinejad’s presidential power and authority exists independently of Iran’s main decision-maker, the Supreme Leader. According to Nader, Iran is "not a democratic country” and is becoming an "increasingly authoritarian system,” but there is "still a political process in Iran.”

6. Iranians don’t hate Americans.

Contrary to popular belief, many Iranians hungrily consume American culture whenever they can in various ways. According to Iranian-American writer Hooman Majd, the author of two acclaimed books exploring the intricate complexities of Iranian politics and society, "…Iranians are indeed the most pro-American peoples of the Middle East—perhaps not pro-American foreign policy—but pro-American in the sense that we would like the people of the world to be.”

Majd notes that "even the mullahs ‘buy American,’ if and when they can.” While American Iran hawks often remind us that Iranians continue to shout anti-American rhetoric, they forget to include that these displays of bluster are usually exhibited in public where there’s state-run media coverage and official pressure to talk and act a certain way. Certainly, the majority of the Iranian population do not wish Americans any harm. Says Majd, "Chants of ‘Death to America’ are meaningless—the phrase refers to US foreign policy, hegemony, and imperialism; not the American dream or the people.”

7. The Mujahideen-e Khalq (aka MEK, MKO, PMOI and NCRI) is not "Iran’s main opposition.”

The short story is that at one time the MEK was a popular revolutionary force in Iran that was brutally repressed. But for decades, it has been detested or considered irrelevant by the majority of the population. It worked for Saddam Hussein’s regime during the bloody and long Iran-Iraq war. It has also committed terrorism inside Iran that led to the death of U.S. citizens.

Now, the MEK is lobbying the United States to remove it from its foreign terrorist organizations list through a well-funded campaign. It’s akin to Al Qaeda advertising in the New York Times, the Washington Post or on cable TV. Its advocates include former George W. Bush administration members Frances Townsend and Michael Mukasey, who has described MEK members as "courageous freedom fighters,” as well as the likes of Howard Dean.

Analysts and journalists who have no affection for the Iranian government have reported the facts about MEK, despite well-organized campaigning by its members to silence criticism or deflect attention by bringing up the real human rights issues its members face in Iraq. MEK supporters have reacted furiously to the Rand Corporation’s description of them as a "cult” and deny the disturbing abuses attributed to their leadership by Human Rights Watch. According to their lobbyists, negative depictions of MEK are funded by the Iranian government, thereby implying that the U.S. State Department and the FBI were also controlled by Iran!

If that isn’t enough to make those who still buy into MEK’s propaganda think twice, consider that when millions of Iranians took to the streets in 2009 after the hotly contested presidential election, the people were focused on democracy in Iran and the "Green Movement,” not MEK. But regardless of what MEK and its former high-ranking U.S. official advocates do to change the reality surrounding them, the fact remains that this group inspires no hope among the vast majority of more than 70 million Iranian citizens.

8. Iranians speak a different language than Iraqis.

It’s common for Iranians to be mistaken for Arabs, but people in Arab nations speak a different language (Arabic varies by region just as Farsi is not the only spoken language in Iran) and have different cultures. Persian food and Arabic food also differ significantly, regardless of which Arabic country you are talking about. As stated in an "explainer” article in Slate: "Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity.”

9. Iranians don’t want another revolution.

There is indeed widespread discontent about the Iranian leadership and life inside Iran among its citizens at home, who have been negatively impacted by years of increasingly harsh U.S.-led sanctions. The widely attended protests of 2009 and 2010 forced the world to recognize this even if the Iranian government refuses to acknowledge the facts. But unlike the protest movements in Arab countries that began in 2011 and resulted in the fall of multiple governments, the Green Movement has since been mostly dormant while the Iranian leadership is alive and more focused on crushing internal dissent amongst establishment figures than democracy activists.

When I was in Iran this time last year, there were weekly protests for imprisoned Green movement leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and widespread arrests and other forms of government-sponsored intimidation. But the protests were nowhere near the scale of what we saw in 2009, and by the Iranian holiday period in March, Tehran cleared out like it always does. This was just a month after Mousavi and Karroubi’s house arrest began.
The argument can certainly be made that Iranians face a brutally repressive government and fear for their lives if they continue to oppose the regime, but as Iran expert and scholar Farideh Farhi told me during an interview last year, many Iranians want change, but not another painful revolution at this point. Like the characters in Asghar Farhadi’s Oscar-winning film, A Separation, average Iranians are occupied with pressing daily living concerns regardless of sex or social class even if the political remains deeply personal. As Farhi noted, "When have two revolutions ever happened so closely together?”

10. Your Iranian friend’s account of the situation in Iran isn’t necessarily authoritative.

It doesn’t matter how convincing your Iranian friend sounds when he recounts his version of Iranian history or current affairs, whether he’s a dentist, a personal relation or a cab driver. Remember that much of the Iranian expatriate population, millions of whom live abroad, left Iran in search of economic opportunities or for political reasons and don’t feel they can return for good even if they wanted to. Their feelings about Iran are therefore extremely complex and that will certainly play into how they describe it to others. What Iranians think about the situation inside Iran is deeply influenced by their sex, class and religious beliefs. This doesn’t mean that what they’re telling you is necessarily untrue or unimportant. But seeking verifiable facts is as important as personal testimony when trying to get a clear picture about Iran—especially now.

http://www.barackobama.ir/en/news/2830/10-myths-about-iran—and-why-they’re-dead-wrong