 - Name: Jim Macdonald
- Location: Bozeman, MT, United States
Hi, my name is Jim Macdonald, and I have an odd assortment of interests. In no particular order, I love Yellowstone, I am an anti-authoritarian activist and organizer, and I have a background in philosophy, having taught at the college level. My blog has a lot more links to my writing and my other Web sites. In Jim's Eclectic World, I try to give a holistic view of my many interests. Often, all three passions show themselves interweaving in the very same blog. Anyhow, I think it's a little different. But, that's me. I'm not so much out there, but taken together, I'm a little unusual.
View my complete profile
(or other places to find my writings from the mundane to the supermundane)
The Magic of Yellowstone
A sample of Jim's writings
Bozeman Antifa Dance (& Theatre Collective)
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
August 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
July 2009
September 2009
April 2010
May 2010
November 2011
February 2012
March 2012
October 2012
November 2012
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
May 2015
September 2015
April 2017
October 2017
January 2018
October 2019
May 2020
February 2021
November 2021
December 2021
January 2022
February 2022
March 2022
January 2023
February 2023
August 2023
September 2023
October 2023
December 2023
January 2024
February 2024
March 2024
April 2024
June 2024
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
FeedWind
|
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
This
arises out of a discussion of the organizing challenges in Occupy
Bozeman. It deals with the question of why numbers dwindle
in organizing meetings. How is it that numbers that can produce
meetings often over 30 can dwindle in a relatively short period of time
to a group of 15 or less. The loss of energy can be disheartening and
devastating for a group.
This small essay raises the discussion of a different organizing
model, where instead of having a large group of 20 or more get
together and reach consensus on every issue, groups start from a model
where smaller groups within the larger group have more power and
autonomy and can still coordinate together in a larger "general
assembly."
Groups can diminish for many reasons - infighting, lack of
consistency, etc. However, I think there is another reason that often
gets overlooked.
This is a dynamic I have seen so many times as an organizer. Groups
sometimes produce great energy. Then, they have these spectacular
meetings, sometimes with large numbers. As the process is consensus or
near consensus (I was in a group once that used 80
percent supermajorities), this allows everyone a voice (as it should
be.) However, when you have 1 or 2 hours, so many voices, and often many
new people unfamiliar with the often complicated meeting process
(sometimes coupled with poor facilitation), people get quickly
frustrated and disenchanted. They either feel they haven't been heard,
or they get frustrated because some people are heard all too much.
Consensus in any group can be messy; as numbers grow, the process
becomes much more unwieldy. Rather than producing something where
everyone is empowered, it actually can produce the opposite. Quieter
voices lose out. Less experienced voices lose out. Even more experienced
voices can lose out. The decisions made often leave out a frustrated
segment that simply grows silent. They don't show up again.
I once learned in a college sociology class that the maximum number
of people that can form a cohesive social group before it inevitably
divides is 15 (and often smaller than that.) I don't know if that number
is right, but it seems borne out by experience. When the group grows
much larger, it becomes disenchanted, or people find different means
besides meetings for their empowerment.
I have never seen a meeting of 30 or more people that was sustainable
over time. Individual meetings have worked, but it always seems to come
down to a natural social group number.
This is a huge problem for a movement that wants to empower every
voice, needs it to be a mass movement of the 99 percent. It's a huge
problem for anyone who believes in consensus.
The Occupy Movement has often given the most power to its local
General Assemblies. That might be a mistaken model because of the
reasons I mentioned. When General Assemblies participation grows to more
than 15, I'd suggest that it immediately must divide into 2 or more
working groups that have their own functional autonomy. When General
Assemblies get together then, they should have some kind of
spokescouncil function, where each working group empowers someone to
speak for the group. Members of the group would still participate and
can still block or request a caucus, but it reduces the number of
speakers and puts the work at the natural numbers where consensus
functions best. It leaves the General Assembly to bascially serve as a
coordinating meeting between autonomous groups and for giving its
blessing to new groups that might form. It would solve disputes that
arise over actions of a working group. It should do nothing more; the
real power should be in the consensus of the working groups.
If we ever find ourselves fortunate to build our meetings up, I'd
suggest we ask newcomers to join one of several working groups - of
which they'd be free to join or leave. It might be even the job of the
internal communications working group to help new people feel at home
and help them find a working group. Then, the last part of the meeting -
the general assembly - would essentially be a spokescouncil, where the
people who can speak for the working group would be empowered to speak
(and be reigned in by members of their group.) It would leave time for
caucusing that might need to arise.
This model gives each person a much richer say over consensus and
decentralizes the structure so that each voice matters. It also allows
for the potential for growth. Each group would be its own functioning
collective of sorts that would do its own thing and can use each
person's energy to reach out.
Hopefully, it would make for much happier newcomers so that meetings
could be much, much larger and still be okay. If a working group is
suddenly more than 15, it should as quickly as possible figure out how
to divide into two groups. If groups get too small (no group should be
smaller than three), then they should stop working, and people should
join the active groups. If necessary movement needs - like outreach -
aren't being met, then the existing groups need to pick up the slack.
I want to put it out there for discussion. I've just seen this too
many times over the years, where groups struggle with this, missing the
obvious that groups that grow too large alienate people. It's a
principle of physics, really. You can't have voice if your voice is too
divided over too many people and limited time.
I'll leave it out there for discussion.
Comments
Well,
that's another thing that movements struggle with ... meetings are not
for everyone; a lot more thought has to be given to ways of including
the energy of people who simply cannot stomach sitting in meetings or do
not best find their voices in them ... that's a hard challenge. One
nice thing about the outdoor meetings was the opportunity for some to
spend it talking with the public. It was an outlet ... coming up with
these kinds of useful outlets are great; they are really difficult to
implement (I lack a lot of creativity - as I'm someone who functions
well in meetings). In one group, we set aside space for people to draw
or doodle or move around during meetings. It was announced that it was a
creative space for people who had trouble sitting still, and so it was a
little less distracting. That had mixed success.
Anyhow ... a lot to think about ... my only real insight is to say
that we need to think hard about how we deal with larger groups of
people (and I suspect this has been a problem everywhere to greater and
lesser degrees ... some of the methods I suggest arise out of experience
in larger cities - where groups sometimes still dwindled to below 15
and would fracture - often bitterly (despite there being a much larger
pool of interested people).
 Yesterday, in
solidarity with a national day of action called against the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Occupy Bozeman held the sidewalk in
front of Wells Fargo in its first action of a divestment campaign against
the bank. More than two dozen people joined also by a couple media
outlets took part in a festive hour of protest, featuring a giant
sign tied to the bank edifice which read "Foreclosed."
Perhaps more importantly, the group heard reports of customers taking
their money out of Wells Fargo, in large part inspired by the campaign.
Billy McWilliams shared this a day prior to the event over an Occupy
Bozeman email list: "I was just at Wells Fargo (I'm a 22-year customer),
and they were cranky. They mentioned it [the protest]. 'We just found
out that we're going to be occupied.' The teller said that she thought
that Occupied was misfocused. I told her that that can cut both ways.
I'm going to divest. While I have great sympathy to the folks who work
at that branch, Wells Fargo has broken the social contract. Thanks for
your fine work!" There were reports of at least one other person
divesting as the protest was ongoing.
Thus, Wells Fargo stayed open throughout the action, giving opportunity for people to remove their money.
Wells Fargo was targeted for the February 29 - " Shut Down the Corporations"
- day of action against ALEC occurring in over 70
cities. ALEC is a group of many of the largest corporations who work
together to draft model legislation to serve the interests of the
richest people in the country. Because Wells Fargo owns a $120 million
stake in two private prison corporations who are members of ALEC, one of
whom was directly responsible for the anti-immigrant law in Arizona
- SB 1070 - and since that coincided with the new divestment campaign
against Wells Fargo, Occupy Bozeman chose to combine purposes.
Wells Fargo, the nation's fourth largest bank and largest mortgage
provider, has been the target of a divestment campaign by Occupy Bozeman
because of the bank's role in economic injustice in our society. They
were and are a huge player in the housing crisis, they continue to hurt
consumers through exorbitant fees, engage in all sorts of other
nefarious practices over which people have little control, and they are
not nearly as good an alternative as many local institutions,
particularly credit unions.
The action on the street was festive. A group of people could be seen
much of the action crafting signs. A donated sound system allowed
people to speak. Others had the opportunity to have voice in mainstream
media interviews being conducted by KBZK (CBS) and NBC Montana. Most
public response during the lunchtime action was positive, though one man
predictably yelled out the old standby, "Get a job!"
Occupy Bozeman will return to Wells Fargo at Noon on Wednesday, March
14. The action, still being planned, may involve a march between U.S.
Bank - where Montana State University has its accounts - and Wells
Fargo. Some sort of street theater is also being planned. Stay tuned,
and get involved - see http://occupybozeman.org.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Video:
baucus.AVI
An Occupy Bozeman
activist talks about why she is holding a sign outside of U.S. Sentaor
Max Baucus's Bozeman office as well as what she would like to see done
by Congress's supercommittee.
 Today,
more than a dozen activists from Occupy Bozeman held what they called a
vigil outside Senator Max Baucus's Bozeman office at 220 W. Lamme St
during the Noon lunch hour.
As occupy movements across the country focus on corporations,
activists in Bozeman are also keeping an eye on the government officials
they believe might act on behalf of Wall Street interests. Activists in
Bozeman, who staged a small protest outside of Wells Fargo Bank this
past Saturday, are watching Baucus's and the Congress's so-called
supercommittee's next move closely.
Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, and longtime senator
from this state, is one of 12 members of Congress on the supercommittee
tasked by Congress with proposing $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions
over the next 10 years. The committee's proposal then would face an up
or down vote in the Congress. If it fails, $1.2 trillion in
across-the-board cuts will be triggered.
Activists at Baucus's office feared that Baucus, a Democrat, might
sell out popular social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security, while leaving levels of war spending untouched. They also
feared that the rich, particularly those on Wall Street, would not be
adequately taxed.
The reasons for concern stem from Baucus's role in pushing through a
version of the Affordable Care Act, also known to some as Obamacare,
that many argued was actually friendly to the insurance company
interests. It left off the table the "public option", which would have
given the uninsured the option to take the same health insurance offered
to federal employees. In 2001, Baucus also voted for the Bush tax cuts,
and in 2008, he voted for permanently repealing the estate tax.
Perhaps, a bigger source of concern comes when looking at his funding sources. According to OpenSecrets.org,
Baucus's leading funder is Aetna - an insurance company. Among his
leading contributors include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Blue
Cross/Blue Shield, and Verizon. He has raised, in just this cycle alone
(2007-2012) millions of dollars from the health sector, but he's also
raised $750,669 from Securities and Investment Firms, $438,230 from the
Real Estate industry, and another $2  18,100 from other finance industry interests. In 2005, Baucus returned $18,892 in contributions connected to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, including Baucus's use of a sky box at a Washington, DC sports arena.
Occupy Bozeman activists held signs and received a fair number of
approving honks from traffic. A young staffer from Baucus's office came
out and took the statements of activists for a computer database that
apparently is seen by the senator. It remains to be seen whether the
voices of his constituents, or rather the dollars from his funders, will
have more influence on his actions. Either way, Baucus has been put on
notice that his work on the supercommittee is fair game for Occupy
Bozeman.
Occupy Bozeman will be having their general assembly meeting tonight
at 7 PM at the Bozeman Yoga Center, 1716 W. Main, Suite 8a1, just east
of 19th Ave. All are welcome to attend and participate.
Comments
Submitted by Vickifri on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 18:19
I give these folks participating in Occupy Bozeman a big thumbs up for standing up for the middle class and working poor in this country.
In weeks past, I have – in my capacity as a member of Occupy Bozeman – written about many of the reasons why you should get your money out of big banks – particularly Wells Fargo – as part of a divestment campaign we are waging against the bank. That campaign continues with an action next week, and I have been a good foot soldier for the campaign.
Today, I write entirely for myself and my analysis of what really
drives me to take on this campaign. In the past, I found myself
appealing to the most selfish motives you might have for making a
switch. I have mentioned high fees, high interest rates, and low rates
of return. I have mentioned bailouts and subprime mortgages,
investments in private prison companies, in the coal industry, and
in fracking. I mentioned unfair practices toward people with
disabilities and African Americans. I talked about fines and court
settlements for wrongful practices. While all those things are and
remain true, the appeal was mostly to address reasons why I think that
you the reader might find Wells Fargo objectionable. I have spoken
little of my own motivation.
I intend to do that in this essay. However, note that I do not think
you need to accept the arguments I am about to give in order to come to
the conclusion that getting your money out of Wells Fargo is a good
idea. Nevertheless, I think there are reasons that may be overlooked
that need to be brought to light. We may not always bring them out for
fear of hurting the harmony in our organizing environment, realizing
that we do not come to the same conclusions for action based on the same
reasons. However, I would be dishonest not to point out my reasons and
point us to these aspects of the discussion.
It is tempting to go into a diatribe against capitalism because at
root this is what this is about and in defense of what I am, which is an
anarchist. That is a necessary discussion to have, but it may take us
too far adrift for the purposes of this essay. I want to hone in on an
aspect of what big banks represent that I think is critical to talk
about while fully well understanding that the issues I raise are really
part of a much bigger discussion about the nature of governance, wealth,
and our reaction to that world.
You should get your money out of Wells Fargo and other big banks
because the very act of doing so is a direct affirmation of what has
been silenced by them – your voice. The most pernicious thing about
banks is not that they make record profits or are deceitful or take care
of their investors while hanging you out to dry. What is most
pernicious is that the whole process by which this happens fortifies a
system that leaves you out of it, which limits your options to register
and act on your disapproval.
Banks like Wells Fargo have largely become what we so affectionately
term “too big to fail.” While that term has become quaint, I do not
think we understand the full import of it. An institution that has
become so large that it cannot be allowed to collapse for fear that it
will send us into a depression essentially has become an unofficial arm
of our government. If we cannot do without something for fear of
collapse, then it is who and what we are. That these banks continue to
engage in practices that keep the entire system teetering on the edge of
collapse, we have much to fear in them because collapse does indeed
bring greater economic hardship to those who can least afford more
hardship. It is an untenable situation. Those held hostage are the
people. As one example, we can easily see how the looming Greek default
is being held at bay on the backs of the Greek people.
Wells Fargo, then, is a non-governmental financial institution that
wields enormous leverage and power on the American government. No
matter who you elect into office, the situation does not change. From
George W. Bush to Barack Obama, the Wall Street interests and the
financial institutions have held the country hostage. No one dares to
let them collapse for fear of the political implications that arise from
an economic superpower suddenly with more starving and jobless people
than it already maliciously tolerates.
Thus, the one manna that most Americans believe is their power, their
voice – the vote – is for nothing when it comes to this state of
affairs. Voting, whatever else it might be, is not power to make any
change when it comes to a bank like Wells Fargo. Even if you somehow
managed to elect someone who would go after these banks, all you would
be doing is setting up the conditions that will hurt the people who
least can afford to be hurt. You will at once be propping up a
political and economic system that allows for renegade banks to assert
so much leverage, or you will be wiping them out and starting us surely
into the storm of depression. Doing the latter might have some
opportunities for the radicals among us to foment our lofty ideals of
revolution, but only people with privilege can dare assert that they
want the hungriest to become hungrier and the jobless to suffer even
more. It is playing God to the extreme to think that we should
manufacture economic crisis for a chance at a systemic change that is
not likely to happen from those means. Look at the Arab Spring where
dramatic increases in the price of basic goods drove people into the
streets, toppled their governments, and found themselves ruled in most
cases by the same ruling classes. Revolution is a beautiful idea, but
it is not as easily attained as some imagine.
One might argue that maybe you could elect – in some strange world
that does not seem to exist in America except in the racist pretenses of
the Tea Party in their views of Obama – some socialist who will
nationalize the banks and therefore rob them of their pernicious
incentive to ruin us and the country. Thus, instead of a state that
tries to keep banks in line through a Central Bank, we simply have
another bank of the United States as the sole chartered national bank in
the country. One has to ask, though, even if such a thing were to
happen, what would fundamentally change in practice. Who would still
have the most influence on government? The poor? In what sense would
such a bank then be accountable to the people? While some of the
pernicious incentives might be erased by such a move, it might mean less
than what some might imagine. Wells Fargo and other big banks already
are essentially arms of government; they are already institutionalized
into the fabric of the country; they already have complete influence
over governing. All you would be changing is the C.E.O. It would be
little less than a nominal change in practice. Wells Fargo, whether in
the private or the public sector, already is welded to the state. The
rich will exert their leverage either way.
Thus, voting is not synonymous with your voice. It is not an action
that you can take that does anything to restore what is lost in this
system.
As a result, we are left with people in our country who have little
say in the governance of their own lives. We are at the mercy of
economic factors out of our control and political factors that keep us
muted. While I can give an anarchist diatribe like this, it’s only
because I have been deemed powerless. We are far from the days when
Emma Goldman could be thrown in jail simply for passing out mere
information about contraception, when a speech on any subject could get
you thrown in jail for years. Everything is essentially entertainment.
We can choose “taste’s great” or “less filling”; we can pay exorbitant
rates to go to sporting matches, buy our cable and our internet where we
can be free to watch or say a million things. Yet, all of that is
because we are thoroughly defeated. When push comes to shove, if the
food trucks stop coming, if the jobs go away, if your home is foreclosed
– those are the things that really matter to the functioning of life –
you really have no say whatsoever. It is a game ruled by a very small
plutocracy. We have been left helpless and foolish like babbling
idiots. It is no wonder that people care nothing for politics. Why
should they? People also don’t care about essays like this; what does
it matter? We need our fix; we are junkies in so many ways. We know
the results of American Idol, or The Voice, but very
few of us really know our neighbors or each other or believe or even
think about whether anything is wrong. Those who do must because
something is very wrong. They are sleeping homeless in our streets,
dying too young on the reservation, and wasting away in prisons (perhaps
for succumbing to the socially unacceptable drugs). They are often too
weakened to take action, and most of us go on ignoring the truth we
must all know – that we are not really free or secure.
What action can we take in such a system? Anything we can do which
not only takes power from the system but also puts it in or closer to
our hands is an action that not only hurts the system but also empowers
us if and when such a system collapses. Thus, it is not enough to let
big banks fail; we have to have means in place to take care of others
when those banks fail. Moving money from one of the banks that are too
big to fail into something like a credit union is not some revolutionary
move in itself. Credit unions in the way they function in practice are
not some idyllic solution; they are not all as democratic as they
seem. Nevertheless, they represent the right kind of transition.
Moving your money to a place that gives you a greater degree of control
over it is a step toward restoring your voice. It begins the process of
transferring the power that banks hold over you back to where it should
be – within your community. Right now, your money goes to fund who
knows what – anything and everything. Shouldn’t it be closer to the
space where you live and breathe, where people still hear what your
voice sounds like? Shouldn’t your voice be sounds and melodies coming
from your vocal chords, and not an abstract balance sheet in a New York
or San Francisco office, or a number on a voting tabulation?
The decentralization of capital from institutions that are too big to
fail to those closer to where we breathe has the effect of wrestling
control of the system from giant banks all while avoiding depression.
Developing the means to exert real popular power at the local level
gives the means for the community to take care of each other when
federal systems begin to fail.
It is an act that tends to restore voice; of course, it is not
enough. The banks do not represent the be all and end all of political
and economic justice. There are many other things besides. We have
touched on issues like food and shelter. Exerting greater control over
the wealth within the community should offer some leverage to better
deal with the problems we all face when the national and global economy
collapses (either in part as is often in American history or in whole as
it did during the Great Depression). If we are not completely at the
mercy of the whims of policy makers and corporate executives somewhere
else, we can actually take steps to do something about the things that
matter to us.
Thus, it seems the first act is simple enough. Get your money out of
a big bank, and move it somewhere else – preferably somewhere like a
credit union. However, the second act, which can happen concurrently
with the first, is to organize in your community and take actions
together which deal with the needs in your community. The more we do
that now, the more we find our voice, and ironically the more dangerous
we become. Essays like this will no longer simply be for your reading
entertainment. They will be seen as revolutionary calls to arms, the
way that disseminating information on contraception was seen in this
country only a century ago. That may be when things get interesting,
but let’s get that far. We need to go that far, or one day – as they
are discovering in places like Greece – things will not really be in our
control. The rich will stay rich, somehow, but we will be starving and
struggling to survive, much like so many already are – as the system
does not ultimately care who thrives so long as those on top stay on
top.
Please take action. Please get your money out of big banks, and
please take action in your community. I don’t want this essay merely to
be an exercise in vanity, which right now is all that it is.
Comments
Submitted by THE DINOSAUR CO... on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 08:30
"Greece,
the birthplace of democracy, is now becoming the deathbed of
democracy." Did you notice that there was supposed to be a referendum
on whether to bail out the big bankers in Greece, then the dudes in
government changed their minds and said WE will decide?
On one hand there are the power people, those who wish to control us.
But on the other hand, there are the slackers, those that don't study
issues and refuse to choose. The ignorant ignore and the archdeceivers
get tricky... a poor formula for REAL CHANGE...
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The
17th century Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that "ought implies
can" meaning that if you are arguing that something ought to happen
that first that same something has to be possible. You cannot say
something should happen if it can't happen.
Here I present 10 things that I'd like to see happen in the next year
in the Bozeman region; most of them probably won't happen. All of them
could happen, though many of them are probably out of our control for
now. In that sense, some of these might violate Hume's warning;
however, I would argue that all of them could happen if enough of
us dared to take the first steps while enough other people dared
to follow.
There are a lot more than 10 things that I wish for; these are the
things that come to mind this morning. They are in no particular order
or rank of importance.
1. An end to the slaughter and hazing of wild bison and full tolerance in the state of Montana. For
decades, the last continuously wild herd of buffalo have been confined
to the cold mountain environs of Yellowstone National Park. The animals
are ready to reclaim some of their lost habitat if only we would
let them. However, the state and federal governments have waged war on
wild bison, killing more than 6,000 since the 1980s, and yearly hazing
large numbers back into the overgrazed ranges of the park. All it would
take for this wish to come true is the political will to make it
happen. Only policy and the fear of a lot of false bogeymen (like
brucellosis) keep the bison from moving out. This is not at all likely
to happen in 2012, even if small steps toward that goal come through (in
large part depending on how a lawsuit by Park County turns out.)
2. A successful bank divestment campaign in Bozeman against one of the major banks. Last
week, Occupy Bozeman consented on just such a campaign, with the most
likely targets in town being either Wells Fargo or U.S. Bancorp. If
such a campaign takes off in the coming weeks and months, look for a lot
more talk about the role of banks locally and alternative places to
keep money. Occupy Bozeman has never had an encampment and
has conducted only a handful of scattered actions from a large march
to a people's microphone inside of Wal-Mart; however, if a regular
picket line or similar action causes pain to a major bank, Occupy
Bozeman will have undertaken a truly effective occupy action on behalf
of the so called 99 percent. A campaign like this is always an uphill
battle, but its success is not outside the realm of possibility.
3. An end to the war in Afghanistan and a return home of any soldiers serving overseas. The
waste that was the Iraq war finally came to an end after eight and
one-half years; the war in Afghanistan is now 10 years long and
growing. While there has been the beginning of a troop draw down,
there are still a lot of troops in Afghanistan, where there is still a
lot of killing and dying. Add to that the secret wars going on
in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, with recent military actions in
Libya, and the call by several - particularly Republican presidential
candidates not named Ron Paul - for action in Iran, Syria, or both (and
uncertainty in North Korea), and there's a lot to worry about here. The
anti-war movement failed to put any dent whatsoever into the war
machine; at best, it helped affect recruitment numbers over a short
period (though not enough to matter). It is far from likely that
activists in Bozeman can do much particularly with limited resources,
but success would always be possible. It's just not at all likely.
4. A full recognition and respect for Bozeman's homeless
population, as well as recognition of the cost of living problem in our
community. Bozeman is among the most expensive - if not the most
expensive - areas to live in all of Montana. While wages are relatively
modest by a national scale, cost of living continues
to skyrocket. Bozeman lacks adequate facilities to serve homeless
populations, needs that go well beyond food and shelter. There is a
lack of adequate and affordable health care (particularly mental health
care) as well. Bozeman projects affluence, but the truth is that we
live in an economically diverse town with a lot of people struggling to
get by. Housing prices may not be rising like they were earlier in the
decade, but they are still too high for many people particularly given
the wage scale in the area. Many jobs do not pay a living wage of at
least $12/hour (minimum), and health care costs for everyone continue to
explode. People are taking steps to address some of the issues, but
Bozeman chugs along mostly in denial, particularly as many here have
simply not been as hurt by the recession as they have in other parts of
the country. I wish that we would recognize not only what the top one
percent have that the rest of us don't, but also what the bottom one or
five or ten or twenty percent don't have that some of us do.
5. Greater respect for our First People's not only by
respecting treaties but also by making an effort to come to terms with
centuries of genocide (particularly assimilation). Some would
object to my use of the word genocide to describe what happened to
Native Americans; however, the truth is that populations in the Western
Hemisphere of indigenous peoples from 1492 on fell by some 98 percent
and by over 90 percent north of the Mexican border due in large part
to policies designed to wipe out native peoples. From massacres to the
spreading of small pox blankets to forced removal to forced debt and the
reservation system to blood quantums, it is simply a
misunderstanding of the definition of genocide to say that those
descended from the original inhabitants have suffered anything less.
What's worse, native cultures have lost so many of their traditions due
to policies over the centuries that intended to integrate American
Indians into the dominant practices of Euroamerican culture. Children
were forced into schools; treaties were written to force tribes to learn
the ways of the "white man." In many cases, languages have been lost.
In Montana, tribes that relied on the buffalo have no access to them.
Bozeman itself was founded because a trail was illegally set up to get
settlers to mines near Virginia City. So much has to be done to come to
terms with our past (and our present) that one year could only be a
start. It could start first by respecting the sovereignty of the tribes
and by taking steps to facilitate tribes who want to stay in touch with
their traditions. Letting bison roam would be a huge start. Working
with tribal leaders on education of traditional languages, arts, and
ways of doing things would be another. Ultimately, though, it will take
a different attitude toward land. Montana is a wild place; the less
confined everything is to parcels of protected property the better. A
commons view toward land might be the largest step any of us could take
toward rectifying the causes that have produced this genocide.
6. A more unionized workforce in Bozeman. One reason that
there's such an economic disparity in Bozeman is that most workers in
this town are not members of a union. They do not struggle together for
their own good. In some local cases here in Bozeman, workers have
chosen not to unionize because the word "union" has such a negative
connotation. The problem is, of course, that workers don't see a union
for what it is intended to be - a way for them to work together for
their own benefit. As long as workers in this town continue to be at
the whims of management - who have little incentive, particularly in
this economy, to care - the economic problems beneath the surface of
this town will continue to fester. All workers, whatever their job,
should unionize. It wasn't that many ages ago in Butte where even the
bartenders and waitresses were all unionized. Bozeman would be better
off if we went that route, and the more connected workers are as
workers, the better. If people do not want to support the narrow focus
of trade unions, join a more general union like the IWW (Industrial
Workers of the World) - which believe it or not DOES exist in
Bozeman. The opportunity is there; will people organize to serve their
own and their community's better self interest?
7. An end to violence against women both here and elsewhere and zero tolerance for it in our community.
I moved to Bozeman four years ago, having lived the previous seven plus
in Washington, DC. Crime is no doubt more of a problem in many
respects in the nation's capital. However, before I moved, I checked
out crime statistics. There is one crime stat that was per capita
higher in Bozeman than it was in Washington; that crime is rape. That
can only be true in a town as otherwise safe as Bozeman because there
must be something culturally tolerated about violence against women. I
doubt that anyone in Bozeman thinks that rape is okay, but are women
believed when violence occurs? How are they treated? Do friends stand
by them, or do they give the male the benefit of the doubt? Is there a
"boys will be boys" attitude? Whatever the reason, this cannot be
tolerated at all by our community. If we are going to take action on
any of the other things listed but don't stand against violence and
disrespect of women, then all we are doing is for nothing. From the
parties on campus to our homes, we must be strong against the most
demeaning violence that continues to be perpetrated and tolerated in our
society. There's no reason we can't be doing more in Bozeman. It
starts first by providing a safe place for survivors to come forward
- not just institutions but rather in our social circles - and by
maintaining that safe place by not placating the men who do such
things. We need to take this seriously.
8. No racism tolerated. To Bozeman's deep credit, when the
Creativity Movement has intimidated local people of color in recent
years, community reaction has been swift and decisive. In 2009, in
response to racist action in Bozeman, organizers from every corner
of the community (from radicals to the city's elected officials) came
together in a march of more than 800 that intimidated the racists out of
the town. Racism, though, goes beyond the more overt forms that the
city has risen against. In the early decades of Bozeman, there was once
a Chinese population of about 30 percent. Now, the city has quite low
racial diversity, much of the diversity that does exist due to the
presence of Montana State University. Racist laws eventually drove out
the Chinese population. Now, we don't have such laws, but
because Bozeman is a place with such a high cost of living and perhaps
myriad other reasons, Bozeman is nowhere near as diverse as it once
was. It is not that racial justice is measured simply by numbers or
strictly by diversity, but it would do us all good to look at the
reality of what people of color face and why Bozeman might not be
particularly an attractive or welcoming place to be for the larger
populations of color in our society. Given this country's and city's
history of racial injustice, it is important that we all look at the
ways each of us may unwittingly be perpetrating the effects of that
history.
9. A physical space for community organizing in Bozeman. This independent media site
began as a first step toward facilitating community action in the
Bozeman region. All of us believe that that step will die without
further steps. The most crucial, many of us feel, is for us to get real
physical space for organizing and for building community. Because more
than half of Bozeman's population did not live here 10
years ago, people generally neither know each other nor have strong
roots in the community. The cold nights keep people from hanging out on
their back porches; neighbors are often strangers. To build community,
there needs to be places where the community can gather. For those
of us who care about making changes in our community, a space is
crucially important. While this wish for 2012 seems more than possible,
it is a huge challenge because of the cost of acquiring and maintaining
such a space. Occupy movements attempted to rectify this problem
through tent cities only to be evicted in most of the places they have
sprung up. A more permanent structure for media, with library
resources, meeting rooms, a lounge, and even a garden (in solidarity
with Bozeman's large and growing food movement) is
essential toward facilitating the many efforts that people in this town
are taking to help this community.
10. To hike and camp as much as possible. This is such a
cliche Bozeman wish, and people here do an excellent job of following
through. Nevertheless, I never want to lose touch with the beauty of
this place. I fell in love with Yellowstone working five summers in the
1990s; I'm even more in love with this place today. The land here
motivates the other nine wishes as much as any other. So often,
people disconnect this wish from the other nine. I have heard it said,
"That other stuff will cloud you; just be one with the snow." The truth
is that the snow is most beautiful when you know it's there for
everyone. At the same time, why are we doing any of the other things
if we are not doing it to experience the world around us through
our senses? I want to climb again up Baldy Mountain with my son and ski
through Hyalite, take backcountry trips in the park and take an
excursion up to Glacier. I want to hike in the Beartooths and camp
among the bears. I want to smell the sulfur and feel the spray of
the hundreds of waterfalls. I want to hide in canyon caves and lie
under the Milky Way. This wish I know I can make happen. By working on
the other nine, those experiences will be all the more special.
So, those are my ten wishes. What are some of yours?
Comments
Submitted by Sir Danacer Anew on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 16:28
As
a hippie from the 'Sixties, I wish this big bumblers, like the
unions, like the UN, and certainly like both political parties, would
not be so easily taken over by the power elite. These suckers
are sitting ducks, stuck in the swamp of materialism, to be infiltrated
by the wheelers and dealers, or simply the greedy. The elite are clever
enough to see where maleable power centers lie...
The labor unions have often been undercut, packaged and made a
mockery of by people that don't have the best interests of the 99% in
mind. Perhaps I AM WAR WEARY (After all, I did get arrested for
protesting the Viet Nam war!) but I think the scene is deeper than what a
few well wishers make of it...
Did you say change?
LOVE!!!
Friday, February 10, 2012
(download mp3 audio recording of essay - length: 17:07)
 There
are a lot of reasons to get your money out of the big banks – starting
in Bozeman with Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank – but I don’t think people
realize just how many reasons there are. Let’s look at Wells Fargo, in
particular, where Occupy Bozeman has put out a call to divest.
I think everyone knows that Wells Fargo took over $35 billion
in bailout money and is neck deep in the housing crisis – most recently
being a party to a $26 billion settlement for a
lawsuit brought by all 50 states regarding improprieties with
foreclosures. What people don’t necessarily know, however, is Wells
Fargo’s poor record on the environment, its ownership stake of
corporations in the private prison industry, and charges it faces of
discriminatory lending to African Americans and discriminatory practices
against people with disabilities. Wells Fargo also spends a lot of the
money it makes from your accounts on lobbying and political
contributions. People may not know just how much money Wells Fargo
makes from these practices, and they may not know that not every
financial institution functions this way. There are alternatives to all
these things, as well as to the high fees, low rates of return, and
poor customer service that are also the hallmarks of Wells Fargo.
In brief, Wells Fargo contributes to economic disparity in this
country. A first step toward economic justice in our community requires
you to divest from Wells Fargo and other big banks. That will help our
region, too, because it will keep your money here. More importantly,
though, if a divestment campaign like this works – and evidence is that
divestment campaigns like this are beginning to take hold – we will
actually be taking a concrete step toward empowering the people rather
than the economic interests of the one percent. It will represent a
dramatic shift toward embracing an economy that considers the community
stakeholders first rather than the one we have now that enriches the
most affluent at the expense of everyone else.
Let us take a look at some of the reasons why you should divest from big banks in general and Wells Fargo in particular.
Wells Fargo Bank, headquartered in San Francisco, is the fourth largest bank in the United States and is the country’s largest mortgage provider. Last year, Wells Fargo’s net income was approximately $15 billion from $73 billion in gross profits.
Whatever you feel about profit, the bank ultimately is there not to
serve its customers but to provide a profit for its shareholders.
Therefore, there are often incentives for a bank to take actions that
are not necessarily to the benefit of many of the bank's own customers.
That is how Wells Fargo has been implicated repeatedly in the housing
crisis. Wells Fargo, like other big banks, engaged heavily in the
subprime loans that precipitated much of the economic downturn. In
fact, in July 2011, the Federal Reserve levied an $85 million fine,
the largest ever of its type, against Wells Fargo for falsifying
documents and pushing borrowers to the high-interest subprime
loans. Worse than that, there are charges that Wells Fargo has
specifically targeted poorer, particularly African American, borrowers
for these bad mortgages. The charges are serious enough that the Department of Justice is currently investigating Wells Fargo on those charges.
Wells Fargo could do this to customers even if they believed that the
buyer would default because it turned around and sold many of those
mortgages to other investors, thus turning a profit. In many cases, the
customers would have qualified for a lower interest loan, but Wells
Fargo still steered people to the subprime loans because more money was
to be made from it with very little consequence. For when the bottom
fell out and banks were beginning to wobble and fail, most of those
banks were deemed too big to fail, and so there were very few
consequences. Wells Fargo received $36.9 billion in the bailout. Then, the government arranged the sale of Wachovia
- a bank that was failing - to Wells Fargo in a sweet deal of about $1
per share. There were also relatively few legal
consequences. An $85 million fine is nothing for a company that nets
over $15 billion a year. Even a $4 billion share in a $26 billion
settlement comes out to only $2,000 per person - a small consolation
for ruining people's lives. It only amounts to one quarter of profits,
and it was money the bank had already saved and accounted for.
The recent $26 billion settlement has to do with how Wells Fargo and
other big banks dealt with foreclosing the properties of people who
could no longer afford their homes because of high interest rates, a
precipitous drop in home values, a lack of buyers, and the
subsequent loss of jobs. Wells Fargo and other big banks often
falsified foreclosure documents and repossessed homes with
either fraudulent or incomplete documentation. They have also been very slow at
working with homeowners on reducing their mortgage payments - part of a
federal program in which Wells Fargo is supposed to be participating
called HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program).
When Wells Fargo finally forecloses on a home, many of these homes
sit vacant as real estate owned properties (REOs). While Bozeman
has a great shortage of space available for rent and a problem with affordable housing, Wells Fargo and other REOs sit vacant. Others are up for auction, and still others sit there with their owners waiting to be repossessed.
Most people, however, have some knowledge that Wells Fargo has been
a big bank that's continued to profit despite hurting customers,
particularly related to its mortgage business. However, there are even
more things to consider that are less well known. Some of those
are directly related to Wells Fargo's practices, some are related much
more generally to the nature of banks. Not all financial institutions
are the same; there are key things that make a credit union - for
instance - distinct from a huge bank like Wells Fargo.
Let's start with Wells Fargo's record on the environment. When we
think of banks, we do not typically think of environmental impact;
nevertheless, because banks finance all kinds of projects, we can see
what kinds of projects that Wells Fargo finances. All big banks brag
about their environmental record, and Wells Fargo is no exception. There
is no doubt that corporations have the luxury to do many things - both
good and bad. Nevertheless, there are some things you might consider.
Wells Fargo is a large financier of the coal industry, a distinction that led one report to list Wells Fargo as the 19th worst polluting bank in the world. The Rainforest Action Network has criticized Wells Fargo for financing illegal logging projects in Indonesia. On the issue of natural gas hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), Wells Fargo has funded Chesapeake Energy
all while being one of the leading lenders who will not give mortgages
for homes with gas leases. They seem to know a home where fracking
occurs is a bad investment all while funding the practice.
Wells Fargo also has the distinction of having an ownership stake in two private prison corporations. They have $120 million
in investments in the GEO Group and the Corrections Corporation of
America. These private prison corporations house inmates and detain undocumented immigrants for a profit
at government expense and use their political connections to
influence policies on crime and immigration. This has been particularly
true in Arizona, where the Corrections Corporation of America has had a
cozy relationship with Gov. Jan Brewer and may have used its influence to pass one of the harshest and most notorious anti-immigrant bills in the country, SB 1070. Activists in Arizona have
as a result not only called on Wells Fargo to divest from the private
prison industry but also on customers to divest their money from Wells
Fargo altogether.
If all that is not enough, last year Wells Fargo settled a case brought by some disabled customers.
The suit brought by people who were deaf, hard of hearing, or have
speech disabilities alleged that Wells Fargo refused to accommodate them
in telephone services. This suit was settled for $16 million.
Is it necessary to add that Wells Fargo is spending more money on lobbying politicians than ever before and does its fair share of contributing to political candidates?
We could go on and on.
All of that may make no difference to you if Wells Fargo were a good
choice for you and your money. Certainly, no one can compete
with the convenience that big banks provide in offering many branches,
many ATMs, and a wide array of financial services. Many people may opt
for a big bank if they only live in the area seasonally or must travel a
lot for work, if only to avoid ATM fees. Banks may stay open longer,
and online banking may be more robust.
However, these positives may actually be more costly to you and yield
less return than other financial choices, particularly credit unions.
Indeed, report after report after report show
that fees and interest rates at big banks are higher, while rates of
return are lower. Whatever you save from ATM fees (and local credit
unions are often part of national networks and sometimes will reimburse ATM fees), you are losing many times over in the ways that banks like Wells Fargo skim from you.
The biggest reason that a bank like Wells Fargo is so expensive relative to a credit union is that credit unions are not-for-profit
financial institutions. They are not sharing their profits
with shareholders somewhere else. Instead, they pass the savings to
their members, who also as members have some say in their
governance. Credit unions also have no incentive to ruin you through
risky mortgages or other exotic financial instruments.
Something else working in favor of putting your money somewhere small
rather than somewhere large is that very little of the money you put
into a big bank stays in the local region. In other words, the money
you spend gets put somewhere else. It gets put into the pockets of
wealthy investors, into the hands of polluters, and into the hands of
the private prison industry. It goes lots of other places as well, but
you get the point. If you keep your money in some local context, you
should better be able to take action against any abusive use of that
money.
It is an understatement, then, to say that there are a lot of reasons
to take your money out of Wells Fargo and other similar big banks. We
have seen that although Wells Fargo has been fined or settled out of
court repeatedly that these sanctions do not make a dent in their
profits. The only leverage that we can exert is to make a concerted
effort to divest. So long as we give permission to Wells Fargo, they
will continue to engage in activities that create the economic hardships
we have seen, that widen the gulf between rich and poor, that pollute
our air and water, and that abuse those most vulnerable in our
society. Without our money, at least they will not be able to do these
things in Bozeman.
One worry about such campaigns is the fear that we may not have the
power to do enough and that Wells Fargo will continue to churn out
record profits no matter what we do. Fortunately, Occupy Bozeman is
hardly the first group in recent months to propose divestment. Last
fall's Bank Transfer Day, where many thousands of people
moved their money from big banks to credit unions, was more than a blip
on the radar. In fact, credit union membership is rising. So,
there already is a wave away from big banks. The wave, however, is not
yet big enough. We need to help it along and need to take creative
action here in Bozeman that will foreclose the only properties that
should be foreclosed - the big banks, starting with the biggest - Wells
Fargo.
Stopping Wells Fargo by itself will not bring economic justice to our
community. It will not by itself end the class gap or bring an end to
the evils in the economic and financial system. However, it can be an
important start toward that goal. If a bank like Wells Fargo can no
longer operate in Bozeman, it will have taken massive community
support. That will say at least two things. One, it will show people
that Bozeman is a place that values its community and is serious about
economic justice. Two, in building a strong community movement around
this issue, it will provide a forum where the many other issues of
economic injustice can be heard, discussed, and acted upon. We will not
be a community that considers the expedience of a few more ATMs to mean
more than justice.
If you want to help, it starts by getting your own money out of a big
bank. It then continues by talking with your friends and sharing this
and other information with them. However, more than that, there will be
opportunities for more action against Wells Fargo. These things are
being discussed at every weekly Occupy Bozeman General Assembly. You
have the opportunity to do something. What's more, if you don't, we
see what the consequences are. Because we give so much money to the big
banks, a lot of people are hurting. You can be part of the solution;
do not be part of the problem. It is hard enough taking on a huge
corporation; it is impossible if those in our community enable them.
There are so many reasons to take your money out of Wells
Fargo. For all the information we are finding related to our divestment
campaign against Wells Fargo, you can start your own (and contribute to
our) research at occupybozeman.org.
Comments
Submitted by The Dinosaur Again on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:07
Didya
notice how many of us older people are standing on our hind legs and
saying, "This financial system is botched up big time!"? We have been
eyeing this kind of information (above) for decades, shaking our head,
saying OH GOD Tell us it ain't true, and then going on with our
business. But now we get it thru our thick skulls that something is
rotten in Den, ah, that den of thieves in International banking.
I hope it doesn't take the kids, ah, young folk decades to decide.
Especially with the bait of living the American Dream --and ignoring
world conditions-- dangling in front of them. Did I ever tell you about
the one of how the middle class has been put as a buffer between the
super rich and the abject poor? The bright kids get so enthused about
becoming filthy rich, and so frightened of falling behind in the rat
race, that they ignore The Big Picture.
LOVE, the little guy...
Monday, November 14, 2011
I
wake up this morning to stories around the country of forced removal of
occupy protesters from their encampments on public space. These range
from Occupy Portland being forced out of their park, to " tactical team raids" on Occupy Chapel Hill. Occupy Oakland is bracing for a similar forced removal. These are either exciting or depressing times depending on your vantage.
I am going to say something that will make some of you cringe.
What's happening in the field with our friends in the street is
essentially the same as what happens every single year to some non-human
local inhabitants to our region. Please hear me out, though. Wild
bison are not allowed to occupy the public spaces in Montana, are forced
from one space to another every year (through a vile practice known as
hazing), and are often lethally removed (either from the canned hunts or
by shipment to slaughter).
But, are these really the same things? Can you compare the political
struggle of people to the struggle for survival of a species? Isn't it
a tortured metaphor?
It is not a tortured metaphor in at least one crucial respect. Bison
are persecuted (as well as sometimes the human activists with Buffalo
Field Campaign - of which I often volunteer) for the protection of the
interests of the wealthiest among us. Though there are no cattle west
of the park except in the summer (and even then at miniscule numbers)
and a few dozen north of the park (held by two owners - one of whom is
on the record as supporting wild bison; the other, at least thinks that
it should be allowed so long as he's taken care of), the interests of
Montana's billion dollar livestock industry have maintained the false
bogeyman of brucellosis transmission to cattle by bison (something
that's never happened in the wild) as a reason for millions of dollars
in government spending to keep bison locked into Yellowstone National
Park. When they venture to claim Montana public lands for escaping
winter's brutality, for giving birth to calves in the spring, to achieve
their own myriad reasons for wanderlust, the government cracks down.
They do so under the guise that it's a health and safety issue. They
sometimes show varying levels of tolerance before inevitably moving in.
They do so with law enforcement agents, helicopters, men and women on
horseback, and they drive those bison back - sometimes injuring them,
sometimes driving calves from their mothers (or a cow/calf pair from its
herd). They sometimes round them up and test them and fit them with
tags and collars. (They do many worse things besides).
The point here, though, is simple. The reason for these removals is
to protect the power of capital, even to the point of absurdity. What
are some tents on a public park really going to do to bring down the
power of corporations? They don't do anything in themselves anymore
than some bison eating grass on national forest lands do. Yet, allow
these people to stay, allow them to organize, allow them to discover
community and means for resisting that power, and the corporations
perhaps rightly fear that the next steps won't be so pretty. If bison
were truly allowed to roam, the way humans capitalize on land, the way
they capitalize on other animals, might be thrown into doubt if bison
were allowed to compete on grass - if wildness was allowed to infect the
way civilization reduces land to acres of neat little squares.
It's ultimately about the grotesque power that the wealthy hold over
the commons, over public spaces, over public institutions. That's what
the occupy movement is about; that's what the struggle of bison has
always been about (ever since they were driven to the point of
extinction in order to force Native Americans onto their reserved
parcels of land and off of the vast commons that once existed on the
North American continent.)
So, for those of us in this region, I hope we'll see the connection
of what our shaggy friends face every year as they try to occupy habitat
in Montana. No, they are just trying to survive; they are not trying
to bring down corporate greed. Corporate greed, nevertheless, is why
they are forced away.
And, to those of you at occupy encampments facing or digging in
against forced removal, my sense of solidarity for you right now
couldn't be stronger. Please be strong; and like the bison, never stop
coming back.
Friday, November 25, 2011
 At
12:15 PM on Black Friday, about 15 activists with Occupy Bozeman
conducted a "people's microphone" at Wal-Mart to call attention to
Wal-Mart's unfair labor practices.
Occupy Bozeman members congregated near the electronics area and
chanted slogans back and forth to each other against Wal-Mart as
hundreds of shoppers and a few workers stopped to take notice. Managers
were soon on the scene, and the group was escorted out as they
continued chanting all the way through the store.
Occupy Bozeman, which has held similar actions in recent weeks outside of Wells Fargo bank and another at an office of U.S. Senator Max Baucus, was there to call attention to Wal-Mart's labor practices. Many were there also to call on locals to shop locally.
Wal-Mart, based out of Bentonville, Ark., is the largest company in Fortune's Global 500 and employees some 2,100,000 workers.
Though Wal-Mart provides many jobs, they have been the target of many
workers' rights groups over the years, particularly those supporting a
living wage. Wal-Mart has countered that the low prices they pass on to
consumers justifies lower wages. While escorting protesters off of
Wal-Mart property, a Wal-Mart manager defended her company's practices
saying, "We pay our workers better than Target."
An April 2011 study by the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research Education found
that if Wal-Mart paid a living wage of $12 per hour, the cost to
consumers would only be an extra 46 cents per visit and $12.49 per year.
Wal-Mart has also been targeted for its use of sweatshop labor.
Wal-Mart, for instance, uses two subcontractors from Bangladesh - The
Nassa Group and The Envoy Group - who pay workers Bangladesh's minimum wage of 20 cents an hour.
Though cost of living in Bangladesh is much less than the United
States, 20 cents an hour has been found not to be a living wage, failing
to cover that worker's nutritional needs.
Wal-Mart has also been criticized in the United States for paying
women less than men in similar positions and for not promoting as many
women as men, even though women make up more than half of Wal-Mart's labor force. A class action suit against Wal-Mart, however, was thrown out by the Supreme Court this past June on the grounds that the women cannot properly constitute a class.
In response to this pressure, the New York Times reported in September
that Wal-Mart is rolling out "women-friendly plans" to buy more from
women-owned businesses and to help women who work for Wal-Mart's
suppliers. For instance, one supplier in El Salvador reportedly makes female employees take pregnancy tests while paying them only 15 cents per pair of pants produced.
Wal-Mart has also been notorious to the lengths it will go to stop
workers from unionizing. In 2005, a store in Quebec was certified as
the only Wal-Mart union shop at that time in North America. Wal-Mart closed that store within a few months of unionizing. However, in other countries, Wal-Mart does have unionized stores. One executive explains,
"In that market, that's what the associates want, and that's the
prevailing practice." That hasn't stopped them from going after workers
in the United States who have a legal right to unionize if they so
choose.
Many of the Occupy Bozeman activists held signs urging people to shop
locally. The concern that Wal-Mart may drive people out of business
and even in cases out of their homes has come up in news this week out
of the nation's capital. There, a Washington Post report notes that Wal-Mart is promising 1,800 jobs,
job-training programs, and a slew of other perks to city residents in
return for being allowed to build its first stores in economically
depressed parts of the nation's capital. Despite the jobs and promises,
several grassroots groups have risen up against Wal-Mart. They note
that none of Wal-Mart's promises is legally binding. Other opponents
have feared gentrification. About five years ago, when big box stores Target and Best Buy moved into Washington's Columbia Heights  neighborhood, rents skyrocketed, forcing out large numbers of long-term residents, many of whom were people of color.
After being escorted all the way to the road by Wal-Mart management,
activists set up on the road at the busy intersection of Oak and 7th,
though relatively far from the main building. For a short while,
management stayed within sight.
Occupy Bozeman has its next General Assembly meeting Saturday at 12
Noon at Soroptimist Park (Rouse and Main). All are welcome to attend
and participate. Afterwards at 2 PM, Occupy Bozeman is screening the
documentary movie Inside Job, which looks at the roots of the financial crisis that started in 2008.
Occupy Bozeman at Walmart Black Friday 11.25.11.mp4
|
Smaller groups
Looking forward to Wednesday night & seeing everyone!