Occupy Our Homes: The Next Stage of the Occupy Movement

14 04 2012

By Peter Dreier

Posted: 12/06/11 11:05 AM ET

Criticized for focusing more on what it is against than what it is for, the Occupy Wall Street movement has now found an organizing issue it can embrace. Perhaps because so many Occupiers have recently been evicted from their encampments in cities across the country, they have found common cause with the growing number of American families facing foreclosure. Last week, after the Los Angeles Police Department evicted Occupy LA from the park outside City Hall, Mario Brito, one of the group’s lead organizers, said that the movement’s activists would begin to set up occupations at the homes and country clubs of major bank executives reside and to work with other groups to protest the growing wave of foreclosures.

More and more homeowners facing wrongful foreclosure evictions are taking a bold stand by resisting banks’ unfair actions. They are deciding to stay in their homes and fight. When the banks or sheriffs come knocking on their doors, they are saying “we’re not leaving.”

One of the leaders of the “Occupy Our Homes” campaign is Rose Gudiel, who last month, with the help of community and union activists, successfully battled OneWest Bank and Fannie Mae to keep her home after they ordered her evicted from her home in La Puente, a working class suburb of Los Angeles. Inspired by Gudiel’s gritty example, other homeowners are taking action. Today, two other families in the Los Angeles area will be linking arms with friends and neighbors to resist eviction from foreclosure.

Ana Casas Wilson grew up in the same house her family has owned since 1975 in South Gate, another working class suburb of Los Angeles. She now lives there with her husband James, a school custodian, her mother, a home health care worker, and her 17-year-old son. Ana, who has cerebral palsy, has been an advocate for the disabled and is active in several local community and service groups.

In 1990, Ana took over the home from her family and refinanced in order to make extensive repairs. Eventually, their loan was sold to Wells Fargo. In 2009, Ana was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer, forcing James to quit his job as a security guard in order to help take care of her. Ana has now recovered after a double mastectomy and the family now has three stable incomes in the household. They have long been able to make payments — but the bank stopped accepting them. Ana and her supporters got the bank to temporarily hold off enforcing the eviction order. But Wells Fargo has refused to reconsider the Wilsons for a loan modification, even though they likely qualify based on their current income.

Art D., his wife, and with their four children, ages 11, 10, 8, and 7, moved into their modest three-bedroom Inland Empire home, east of Los Angeles in 2003. (The family asked that its last name not be revealed until today.) It was their first home and represented the American dream they had worked their whole lives for. Art has worked for over 21 years as a supervisor at a metal finishing company which makes parts for the aerospace industry, and before that he served five years in the Marine Corps.

In 2009, due to the economic crisis, Art was working fewer hours, making it harder for him to make his monthly mortgage payments. He applied for a loan modification with his bank, JP Morgan Chase, and was given temporarily lowered payments. After he made four payments, Chase notified Arturo that they were rejecting him for a permanent modification, they wouldn’t accept further payments, and they would be foreclosing on his home, even after he provided the bank with paperwork showing that his income had recovered to its previous level. In November 2010, the house was sold at public auction and in June the family was evicted from their home. Although Art and his family have relocated to an apartment in Orange County, they are determined to get their home back from the bank that took it from them unjustly.

Ana, Art and their families have decided to take the courageous step of reclaiming their homes. Joined by supporters, they will take direct action today to challenge Wall Street profiteering that has created a housing crisis for millions of families.

Actions will include “reclaiming” houses that banks are leaving vacant and “home defense” to stop banks from foreclosing and profiting further from the economic crash they created.

The protest at the Wilson home will take place at 12:30 p.m. at 8968 San Juan Avenue in South Gate. At 3 pm, protesters will meet at the parking lot at Ralph’s grocery store at 3350 La Sierra Avenue in Riverside, before moving to Art D.’s home. (Contact ACCE organizer Peter Kuhns at (213) 272-1141 for more information).

Homeowners in other cities — including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Portland, Oregon — will be taking similar actions.

The “Occupy Our Homes” campaign is led by a coalition of community groups, unions, and faith-based organizations. In California, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) and ReFund California has taken the lead in mobilizing public outrage at banks’ irresponsible actions. They are part of a national network of organizations that includes the New Bottom Line, New York Communities for Change; Take Back the Land, and SOUL (in Chicago). In Los Angeles and elsewhere, Occupy Wall Street activists have jumped on this bandwagon to channel their anger against the financial industry and its grip on our political system.

The current economic tsunami was caused by the greedy and short-sighted practices of the major Wall Street banks. Taxpayers gave Wall Street banks a $700 billion bail-out through the federal TARP plan, and another $7.7 trillion in nearly interest-free loans of taxpayer money through the Federal Reserve. Bank profits in the third quarter of 2011 were more than $35 billion — higher than they were before the crash. According to the analysis of the “Occupy Our Homes” campaign:

    • Banks created a housing bubble, deliberately designing predatory loans with balloon payments, variable rates, and other features that would yield short-term profits while preying on families least able to pay.
    • Banks knew that many of these loans could not be repaid, but they didn’t care because they planned to package and re-sell the mortgages to investors who then were left holding the bag.
    • The economy crashed as a result of this bank-created house of cards, putting tens of millions of Americans out of work. Unemployment is overwhelmingly the primary cause of foreclosures.
    • More than 6 million Americans have lost their homes, often through illegal foreclosures, and another 5 million are at risk. Many homeowners were told that if they stopped making payments, they could qualify for a lower rate. When they did so, the banks put them in default and initiated foreclosure.
    • The banks still claim that they should be able to collect mortgage payments based on the value of homes before the crash they caused, rather than current value. At least one in four homeowners is now “underwater” — meaning the bank wants them to make payments on a higher mortgage than what the house is worth.
    • Wall Street is draining hundreds of billions of dollars from communities by demanding artificially inflated mortgage payments — money that is needed to support local jobs and small businesses and get the economy working again for the 99%.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/occupy-our-homes-the-next_b_1131551.html

 




More great information pertaining to fair trade vs. free trade

14 04 2012

http://www.oxfam.org/en/development/ethiopia-starbucks-campaign-anatomy-win

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/about

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/real_lives/chile

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/real_lives/burkina_faso

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/milking_it/milkingit/information/the_issues/free_trade.htm

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/rigged_rules




http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-eu-trade-idUSBRE83104020120402

14 04 2012

Great article that shows that the free trade vs. fair trade debate does not only pertain to developed countries vs. developing countries




Pecha Kucha Training Bite

13 04 2012

[iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/wGaCLWaZLI4″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen]




Prezi on Internet Censorship

13 04 2012




Senators visit Syrian Refugees

12 04 2012

John McCain and Joe Lieberman visited a refugee camp as the situation continues to get worse in Syria. Clashes reached the Turkish border and Prime Minister Erdogan is now evaluating how best to respond.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335002038472414.html?mod=googlenews_wsj




Justice Dept. Sues Apple and Publishers Over E-Book Pricing; 3 Publishers Settle

11 04 2012

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/justice-files-suit-against-apple-and-publishers-over-e-book-pricing/?hp

 

Although I am not part of the fair trade group, I follow Apple closely. They are currently being sued by the Justice Department along with publishers in an anti-trust lawsuit surrounded around collusion to raise e-book prices.




Adapting Journalism to the Web

6 04 2012

A nice post on Jay Rosen at MIT’s Center for Civic Media on adapting journalism to the Web.  His take is not only about how media is changing, he looks critically at users (like us) too.




The Case for Anonymous – Hacks of Valor

4 04 2012

There have been several high profile events related to Wikileaks, Anonymous and other groups that have use technology as a medium for protest.  However, their disruptive impact has led them to be labeled by some officials and media sources as criminals or terrorist.  In in Foreign Affairs web feature `Hacks of Valor‘, Yochai Benkler makes the case for the actions of Anonymous as `unpleasant pranksterism to nasty hooliganism’, but not `vast criminal or cyberterrorist conspiracy’.  Agree or disagree, it’s definitely an interesting article, and if you’re allowed to talk politics at the dinner table, may make for a lively Easter or Passover discussion!

 

 

 




Capitalism Chews Over Fair Trade

2 04 2012
The Guardian home

Printing sponsored by:

Sponsored by Kodak Advertisement

Word of mouth badge

Capitalism chews over fair trade

Fairtrade accreditation is the current big thing for the major food companies, but fair’s not always fair. What big corp fair trade products are greenwash and which should we be buying?

Fair trade coffee

Starbucks, Cadbury, Sainsbury and other big brands are stocking more and more fairly traded produce. Photograph: NewsCast

So now every cappucino, latte and espresso in Starbucks is Fairtrade. All Cadbury’s Dairy Milk is too. So are all the bananas in Sainsbury’s. The British government isputting your tax money into the Fairtrade Foundation‘s work with producers in the poorest countries. What’s left to fight about?

The ethics were pretty simple in the early days of Fairtrade. It was a rebel brand; every penny spent was an easy poke in the eye for capitalism and that nasty, greedy Man. But, just as happened with organic, the Man saw that there was money in such fine thoughts, and started to stock Fairtrade. In the late 90s the twirly-whirly green and blue hippy label started appearing on the shelves in the Co-op and Sainsbury, and in 2005 even Nestlé, food campaigners’ great Satan, launched a Fairtrade coffee.

So should we celebrate?

If major global corporations have taken to fair trade, the argument that it’s better to pay producers a living wage is winning. Right? If Cadbury can do it with their most popular product maybe Nestlé and Mars will follow. Note that the price of Dairy Milk is staying the same. Perhaps the big corporations are learning that it’s worth sacrificing a little bit of profit for ethical gain.

Hmm. Capitalism has, as you may have noticed, an unnerving habit of assimilating challenges to it, of turning radical innovations to its own advantage. Hence the string of buy-ups of supposed orthodoxy-challenging, ethical businesses over the years (Innocent, Green and Blacks, Pret a Manger, Ben and Jerry’s, The Body Shop: the list goes on and on).

I can’t think of many examples where that sort of deal has brought any lasting change to the big corp that did the swallowing: generally the original ethical raison d’etre of the acquisition turns out to be just a nifty bit of marketing. And deals with the grateful sellers don’t always survive corporate restructurings or boardroom clear-outs. If Kraft does succeed in its attempts to buy Cadbury, as ongoing talks suggest it could, which of the chocolatier’s non-profit-generating promises will the Americans keep?

So what’s the ethically-challenged consumer to do? Clearly, when these deals happen, you need to take a cold look behind the hype (on this company blog, for example, Cadbury may give you a Fairtrade T-shirt!!) and examine each one very carefully.

Cadbury Schweppes bought Green and Blacks organic, fairly traded chocolate four years ago. Now Cadbury turns one of its many brands – admittedly, Britain’s most popular chocolate bar – Fairtrade. Why not the others? Why not a Fairtrade Crunchie, Wispa and Creme Egg? What, exactly, is the argument against paying people a decent, stable rate for their crops and helping them make their business is sustainable? This is serious stuff – child labour and even slavery is reportedly endemic in West African cocoa farms.

Cadbury says: “This is a step in a long journey for Cadbury and the hope is that it’s just the start.” What does that mean, exactly? Buy the Dairy Milk and maybe we’ll do the right thing by all the children on the cocoa farms?

Going Fairtrade doesn’t mean turning nice all over, of course. Cadbury still puts azodyes in Creme Eggs. According to the union Unite, they have just reneged on a pay deal, despite rising sales this year. They want to move a lot of British jobs offshore. There may be a strike.

Greenwashing is the term used to describe that PR scam where a big corporation boasts about a small ethically-minded change (a petrol company puts solar panels on filling station roofs, say) so it can get away with doing everything else (selling petrol) just as it did it before. Pharmaceutical corporations are adept at it. During the great coffee wars early this decade, the four biggest global coffee companies greenwashed themselves by changing part – often a very small part – of their product line to Fairtrade, or the Rainbow Alliance certification.

Nestlé notoriously pushed its profit margin on coffee up to 26% when prices collapsed at the end of the 1990s, while millions of farmers and their families dropped into poverty. Roundly criticised by Oxfam and others, in 2005 Nestlé launched a Fairtrade certified coffee: Partner’s Blend – “coffee with a conscience”. When I last saw some in a supermarket it was priced at nearly double the shop’s own-label Fairtrade brand – which may explain why Partner’s Blend is hard to find.

It is just one of 640 Nestlé lines and accounts for far less than 1% of Nestlé’s total global coffee purchases. If Partner’s Blend is coffee that “helps farmers, their communities and the environment”, why should we not assume that the other 99% of Nestlé’s coffee does not help them at all?

So – what big corp Fairtrade should you buy? I’d love to know your views. Here’s my rule of thumb:

Don’t buy the new green or fairly traded big brands unless they are plainly a significant part of the company’s business, and you can assume your cash might act as a lever to persuade other manufacturers the same way. And don’t trust go-it-alone “ethically sourced” rubrics – if the label is not Fairtade or Rainforest Alliance, the scheme is usually not as good. Or it’s a spoiler.

So I would support the Co-op, who have led the way in turning all their own-brand coffee, tea, sugar and chocolate Fairtrade – they deserve it. I would not buy Nestlé, in any shape or form. I’m not tempted back over Starbucks’ doorstep yet, because I’m still cross at how long they prevaricated over sourcing all their coffee in a provably ethical manner. (While campaigning during the coffee crisis in 2002, I remember arguing with a Starbucks exec who said with supreme smugness that there was absolutely no need for the chain to go Fairtrade because the company was inherently decent in all its dealings with both customers and suppliers “That goes with our name”. A little later Starbucks tried to trademark the names of Ethiopia’s most ancient coffee varieties.)

But I am going to start buying Green and Black’s again because I think we can accept that Cadbury (who now own the brand) are making more than token changes to their business. Dairy Milk? – I can’t stand it. I’d rather eat Galaxy. But that’s owned by Mars – who own what may be the world’s most widely-stocked brand, M&Ms, and produce no Fairtrade chocolate at all.

There is some trenchant criticism among economists of the Fairtrade model: there are intrinsic problems over how it expands to benefit an entire industry, rather than some farmers at the expense of others. But the Fairtrade Foundation appears to be reacting to this in interesting ways. Fairtrade 2.0 is on its way, and not before time.

  • © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.