Human Rights Monitor has published a letter of recommendations to the UPR regarding the abysmal record under the current coup regime. We have highlighted some of the report: • All death sentences must be lifted immediately due to the current lack of the minimum standards of a fair trial. • The Egyptian authorities must abstain […]
By SYRIA: Direct This is the first of two interviews asking the same questions of a resident of Damascus, and just a few kilometers away, a resident of the Ghouta suburbs. In Damascus and the surrounding areas where neighboring suburbs have been turned…
The Nation: When was the last time civil disobedience brought about change?
Edward Snowden: Occupy Wall Street.
The Nation: One of us might disagree with you. Arguably, Occupy was a very important initiative, but it was soon vaporized.
Edward Snowden: I believe strongly that Occupy Wall Street had such limits
because the local authorities were able to enforce, basically in our
imaginations, an image of what proper civil disobedience is–one that
is simply ineffective. All those people who went out missed work,
didn’t get paid. Those were individuals who were already feeling the
effects of inequality, so they didn’t have a lot to lose. And then the
individuals who were louder, more disruptive and, in many ways, more
effective at drawing attention to their concerns were immediately
castigated by authorities. They were cordoned off, pepper-sprayed,
thrown in jail.
“authorities were able to enforce, in our imaginations, an image of what proper civil disobedience is–one that is ineffective” says Snowden
— Occupy Wall Street (@OccupyWallSt) October 27, 2014
The Nation: But you think Occupy nonetheless had an impact?
Snowden: It had an impact on consciousness. It was not effective in
realizing change. But too often we forget that social and political
movements don’t happen overnight. They don’t bring change
immediately–you have to build a critical mass of understanding of the
issues. But getting inequality out there into the consciousness was
important. All these political pundits now talking about the 2014 and
2016 elections are talking about inequality.
October 21, 2014. Kesh Malek (Checkmate) has launched an advocacy campaign explaining that the Syrian regime and The Islamic State are cut out of the same cloth, containing sarcastic material and merchandise focusing on the similarities between state, …
Original Post: https://www.crowdrise.com/SupportQilombo/fundraiser/ramonaqilombo We are in the midst of intense times and intense events happening here in the Bay Area, in this country and worldwide. It is a time where poor people and black and brown communities are under serious attack and facing heightened levels of violence and repression as well as ever […]
A Statement by the female political detainees in Damascus Central Prison (Adra): Our people are suffering from great tragedies while waiting for the dawn of freedom. Ours is one of those tragedies that we endure in silence and under intentional media b…
#FreeSoltan October 19, 2014 For Immediate Release: Today, Mohamed Soltan’s family, friends, and supporters- join Mohamed in his nearly 9-month long hunger strike. We are horrified at Mohamed’s 14-month detention without charge or evidence and his continually delayed trial dates. Similarly, there are scores of others held in Egyptian prisons on hunger strike who are […]
Asia and Pacific Museum and the Committee of Action Aid celebrated the Syrian DAY in the MUSEUM OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC in Warsaw, Poland. Saturday, 18 October, 2014 A Polish lecture about Syrian traditions, Hijab and customs. People attended the event enjoyed tasting traditional Syrian food and trying on Syrian costumes. Event Page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1470664833203429/
Original in Arabic: https://www.facebook.com/haythamabokhalil/posts/875536089131805 A message from the university students I convey as is: The BUE administration, headed by Dr. Ahmad Hamad (an ex-army officer), dismissed 13 students for a period of week with charges like inciting other students against the university administration by writing FB posts. The decree was taken yesterday, October 9, to come amid a […]
Since the morning, intense clashes have been ongoing on the outskirts of Ein Turma town in Damascus’s suburbs as the regime’s forces were trying to invade the area and the Free Syrian Army fighting them back. Regime’s forces then began extensively bombarding Ein Turma with mortars and artillery as a MEG warplane hovered over the […]
Article first published in: http://commentmideast.com/2014/10/syria-international-coalition-intervention/ In recent weeks we have seen the establishment of an USA led International coalition also composed of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qata…
Friday 10-10-2014: More than 20 martyrs fell in Daraa province– Tens wounded Regime’s helicopters dropped a TNT barrel on Al Harrah town in Daraa’s suburbs 6:00 a.m. in the early morning whilst families were sleeping. Buildings collapsed over the families’ heads and buried them underneath. After civilians gathered to salvage the casualties from underneath the […]
You are invited to attend:
THE END OF PROTEST
A lecture by Micah White, PhD
October 20, 2014 at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio
The paradigms of contemporary protest are undergoing a period of crisis. The global forces that impact our collec…
By Mouaz Kh Alhasanee
Google Doc File HERE. This is a call for solidarity and participation to all organizations and individuals interested, We invite you to participate in the demonstration that will take place on 18 October 2014 in front of every Egyptian embassy around t…
Original Statement in Arabic. “In the Name of God Most Gracious and Most Merciful Our country has been in great distress and lately the forces of what is called “International Coalition” decided to strike Islam and Muslims under the pretext of fighting “terrorism”. The coalition warplanes raided Syrian territory and targeted indiscriminately free fighters and […]
More than 400 Syrian refugees arrested/ tortured – At least 2 refugees martyred [News in this report will be updated as soon as activists report to us.] Lebanese Army invaded several camps in Ersal in Lebanon at 5:00 a.m. in the early morning. The camps invaded include Al Sanabel and War’a Al Jafr where most […]
Serious Fears for the Loss of Large Number of Casualties among Civilians Arabic: http://ur1.ca/i8kwf https://www.vdc-sy.info/ https://twitter.com/VDC_Syria In the early hours of the morning of September 23, 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that the United States, together with its allies, have launched a wave of military operations against targets of the Islamic State in Iraq […]
ENGLISH (French and Spanish and Arabic version follows) No to US airstrikes on Syria and Iraq! All support to popular movements in Syria and Iraq! A statement by Syrian Revolution Bases of Support As the US once more beats the drums for its “war on terror” we affirm our opposition to US/coalition airstrikes on Syria […]
Stop capitalism. End the Climate Crisis.
Read more on Adbusters.org
This article was originally published at The Democracy Journal
Foundations and philanthropists do much good, but these unelected actors have acquired enormous power to shape policy. Should they be reined in?
Though this is not the way I would usually describe my career, one way of looking at it is that I spent my first 20 working years trying to raise money, and the next 15 trying to give it away. The transition, which took place when I left Human Rights Watch in 1996 to found the United States Programs of George Soros’s Open Society Institute, was a challenging one.
On the one hand, having dealt with foundations over the years as a supplicant, I felt I knew their ways—and in particular, ways of behaving that I was eager to avoid. On the other hand, suddenly becoming the gatekeeper to many millions of philanthropic dollars altered most of my collegial relationships, and many of my personal ones, infecting all but a few of them with a new power dynamic. I found myself—as various wags have observed about philanthropy staff over the years—a great deal smarter, wiser, funnier, and probably handsomer than I had been only months before.
I managed that personal transition as well as I could. I vowed not to internalize the importance others now ascribed to me. What power I held was derivative and temporary, and I tried not to forget that. I think I was mostly successful in remembering, so my recent transition out of philanthropy, with the accompanying loss of certain kinds of power and capital, has been that much easier as a result.
For the better part of those 15 years, I oversaw grants made by two of the world’s largest foundations, both with engaged and active donors, probably to the tune of about $3 billion in all. So I’ve had more experience helping to direct the largesse of the living rich than almost anyone, aside from Patty Stonesifer, Jeff Raikes, and Sue Desmond-Hellmann, the former and current CEOs of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Through that experience, I’ve been a vocal and persistent advocate for a certain kind of philanthropy, one that eschews simple charity—worthy but palliative measures like supporting a soup kitchen or personal gestures like providing a scholarship—for attention to policy, to the root causes and structural conditions that result in hunger or lack of access to education in the first place. I’ve preached to my philanthropic brethren the virtues of support for advocacy on the leading social-justice issues of the day, and tried in the positions I’ve held to model that in the hopes that others would follow, or in any case find it safer territory to explore. The grant made by Atlantic Philanthropies during my tenure to Health Care for America Now, the grassroots organizing campaign for universal health coverage—at $27 million, the largest advocacy grant ever made by a foundation—was perhaps the most prominent of many such examples.
And yet it was during that campaign, ironically, that I began to have my first real doubts about the legitimacy of philanthropy in its engagement with the democratic process. You’ll recall that one of the many attacks on President Obama’s health-care bill was that it would bust the budget, and the President was careful to state from the outset that this major social-welfare advance would be revenue-neutral, not adding to the deficit, and indeed saving money over time.
That meant finding a combination of savings and new revenue to finance the bill. One proposal from the Administration would have capped the income tax deduction for charitable contributions at the level it was during the Reagan Administration, 28 percent. Almost without exception, the organizations that purport to speak for foundations and the nonprofits they fund rose up in opposition to the proposal.
There are credible arguments on both sides about how much effect a change in the deduction would have on charitable giving in the United States. I tend to believe the studies—such as those by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University—that assert that there would be a modest effect, if any. But let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the effect would be more than modest—that wealthy Americans in particular would open their checkbooks for causes dear to them a bit less often without the incentive of a tax break. Is that a price worth paying?
I think so. We had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to advance universal health care, benefitting many millions of uninsured Americans, saving lives, staving off bankruptcies, and indeed saving public dollars that would otherwise be devoted to emergency-room care. We had a means of helping to pay for it by a slight alteration in a tax break used by the most well-off—and, undoubtedly, the most generously insured—members of society. Yet the collective leadership of American philanthropy—a leadership, by the way, that had been with few exceptions silent about the redistribution of wealth upward through the Bush tax cuts, silent about cuts in social programs, silent about the billions of dollars spent on the wars of the last decade—found its voice only when its tax exemption was threatened, and preferred to let the government go begging for revenue elsewhere, jeopardizing the prospects for health-care reform, in order to let rich, well-insured people go on shielding as much of their money as possible from taxation.
As you can tell, this steamed me up a lot, and it did again later when the same script played out during the fiscal cliff crisis. What that situation made plain to me was not just that philanthropy is quite capable of acting like agribusiness, oil, banks, or any other special-interest pleader when it thinks its interests are jeopardized. It helped me to see that however many well-intentioned and high-minded impulses animate philanthropy, the favorable tax treatment that supports it is a form of privatization. Money that would otherwise be available for tax revenue that could be democratically directed is shielded from public control for private use.
As Rob Reich, co-director of the Stanford University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, wrote in a 2013 cover article in Boston Review, “What Are Foundations For?”:
Philanthropy in the United States is not just the voluntary activity of a donor. Philanthropy in general, including the work of foundations, is generously tax-subsidized. The assets transferred to a foundation by a donor are left untaxed in two respects: the donor makes the donation more or less tax-free, diminishing the tax burden she would face in the absence of the donation; and the assets that constitute a foundation’s endowment, invested in the marketplace, are also mostly tax-free. …[F]oundations are partly the product of public subsidies. They are created voluntarily, but they result in a loss of funds that would otherwise be tax revenue. In 2011 tax subsidies for charitable giving cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $53.7 billion. So foundations do not simply express the individual liberty of wealthy people. We all pay, in lost tax revenue, for foundations, and, by extension, for giving public expression to the preferences of rich people.
I can already hear the arguments that will be made against this view on the political right. They don’t believe in a strong government role in the economy and social welfare, and certainly not the taxes that support it. They prefer to let the private market deal with health and income security. They don’t view wealth as presumptively subject to taxation, and they think the idea that favorable tax treatment constitutes a subsidy turns the world on its head. I don’t agree with them, but I understand their worldview, and they have credible arguments that flow from it.
I do wonder, though, about my progressive friends. They believe in a strong government, in a fair tax system, in a robust social-welfare system, and in a vibrant democracy where all voices count equally. Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?
It wasn’t always so in our history. When the titans of their day, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, sought to set up trusts to spend some of their vast wealth for charitable purposes, Frank P. Walsh, a progressive lawyer who chaired a congressional inquiry into industrial relations, called the new Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation “a menace to the future political and economic welfare of the nation.” In that period, 100 years ago, the foundations’ endowments surpassed what the federal government, in the pre-New Deal era, spent on education and public health. Walsh called for the “democratization of private benevolence” through more progressive taxation.
In testimony before the Walsh Commission, Morris Hillquit, the labor lawyer and Socialist Party leader, said that large foundations like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Russell Sage “represent in the domain of philanthropy just what trusts represent in the industrial field.” Edward P. Costigan, who would later represent Colorado in the Senate, called the Rockefeller Foundation “a supreme example of the philanthropy which deadens, by its large benefactions, a public criticism which otherwise would be as formidable as inevitable.” Even feudalism and slavery, Costigan went on, “boasted of their occasional generosity.” The Reverend John Haynes Holmes of the New York Church of the Messiah, who would serve for two decades as chair of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union, called foundations “essentially repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society.”
In 2013 you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone close to the mainstream of American civic life and political thought raising those kinds of fundamental concerns. Is it because 100 years of practice has erased them? Or because philanthropy has deadened criticism, as Costigan warned, with its “large benefactions”?
This is an operation to physically serve Justin Wedes with the lawsuit to recover the @OccupyWallSTNYC twitter account for the movement. Justin unilaterally hijacked the account on August 12, silencing many people throughout our community who were usin…
From: Palestinian camps network news union first published on Tuesday September 16th Dear Friends, I regret to inform you of the news that the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus is on the verge of a new catastrophe similar to the previous disaster which claimed the lives of around 150 residents of the camp, including […]
Please read and share this wonderful news about the Rolling Jubilee as reported in the Guardian. Then click here for a brief history of the Rolling Jubilee and the activist-tactic of buying and forgiving debt.
Over the last few days, over 2,700 Everest College students woke up to find that someone had paid off their private student debt.
This was no act of goodwill by the government, which is currently suing Everest parent Corinthian Colleges for its predatory lending practices. Nor is it a gift from Everest itself, which is expected to shutter its doors and possibly leave 72,000 students out of their time and tuition.
Instead, the disappearing student loan debt is the second major piece of financial activism by a group of Occupy Wall street activists.
To inspire Americans with student debt to unionize, the Rolling Jubilee Fund, a project of Strike Debt, has purchased and abolished a portfolio of private student loans issued to Everest students.
Strike Debt is also launching a new initiative – The Debt Collective, which will “create a platform for organization, advocacy and resistance by debtors”.
“Solutions are not going to happen if we just wait for Congress to do it,” says Thomas Gokey, one of the organizers “We need a social movement. We need debtors to unite to exert collective power.”
The portfolio was valued at – to be exact – $3,856,866.11 in student debt.
In the vast scheme of things, $3.8m is barely a drop in the bucket as the student debt owed by Americans has now surpassed $1tn.
The gesture, however, is meant to be symbolic as it proves that debt can be conquered – and at a discount. Rolling Jubilee bought the $3.8m worth of student loans for a total of $106,709.48 in cash. That’s about 3¢ for $1 of student debt.
“The Rolling Jubilee doesn’t actually solve the problem. The Rolling Jubilee is a tactic and a valuable one because it exposes how debt operates,” says Gokey.
“It punches a hole through the morality of debt, through this idea that you owe X amount of dollars that the 1% says you owe. In reality, that debt is worth significantly less. The 1% is selling it to each other at bargain-based prices. You don’t actually owe that.”
The 1% in this scenario are the companies issuing private student loans and the debt buyers, who often purchase student loan portfolios like the one purchased by the Rolling Jubilee.