Photos from the #NoDAPL Protest outside the Energy Transfer Partners Office in Austin, Texas

From 7 to 8 p.m. on September 13th, concerned Austinites participated in the national day of action against DAPL by assembling outside the Energy Transfer Partners office downtown.

The event featured speakers, prayer (see the second photo below), chanting, and smudging.

If we measure the success of a protest in terms of its ability to connect the participants to each other and their cause, then the protest gets an A. 

But if we measure that success in terms of how much attention a protest calls to the target problem and how much of an impact it has, it's not clear the protest earned anything higher than a C-.

Passing cars honked at us in a show of support, so we definitely reached people who weren't participating in the protest.

But I'm not sure we generated much media coverage outside the local area--which is a pity, since the people on the front lines of Standing Rock need to know that they have support way down here in Texas.

In this blog, I've often commented on the scant and misleading coverage given to progressive causes by mainstream media. That problem is more significant than most people recognize because it doesn't simply mean that uninterested people remain uninformed about what's happening. More damning is the fact that highly interested people can remain uninformed about important things that are happening elsewhere in the country--even if those things relate directly to the causes that are nearest and dearest to their hearts.

Of course, we can use alternative media to overcome this deficiency. But no one in Austin seems to be doing so (at least not in an effective enough way for me to have discovered their efforts).

So for what it's worth, I've included a series of photos from the protest in this blog post. But since my readership is small, I would love to pass these photos along to a local or regional progressive blog aggregator of some kind. So if anyone knows of such a thing, please provide me with a link in the comments below.

Corporate Social Responsiblity, Greenwashing, and the Austin Environmental Justice Team

On September 12th, concerns about DAPL drove local citizens to attend a meeting of the Austin Environmental Justice Team (ATXEJ).

According to the meeting organizers, turnout was about 150% higher than usual, suggesting that DAPL is having a galvanizing effect on activism in Austin (and presumably throughout the country).

The meeting was scheduled to run from 6:30 to 8:30, but it lasted far longer than anticipated because the moderators stuck to an agenda designed for sixteen to eighteen people even though there were more than twice that many in attendance. By the time the icebreaking/introduction activity was over, we were already 20 minutes behind schedule.

Most of the attendees were college-aged, and the event was a hybrid of the typical college workshop and an academic or corporate committee meeting.

There were brief periods of general discussion punctuated by structured group activities. And there were also summaries of reports from subcommittee members on various topics (from the funding of the local police department to the extra fees Austinites must pay to receive electricity generated by solar power).

I don't know anything about how ATXEJ receives its funding, but these folks are getting ripped off if their coffers aren't routinely filled by the sinister agents of corporate social responsibility (CSR)--because it's hard to imagine an intentional greenwashing campaign being more effective at dissipating civic energy than this meeting was.

I was one of a group of people who rose to leave at 8:30--partly because that was when the meeting was supposed to end, partly because not one word had yet been said about DAPL (the concern that had brought most of us to the event), and partly because it had become evident, by that point, that ATXEJ takes a neoliberal approach to environmental concerns.

I sensed the neoliberal tendencies in one of the earlier exercises, when roughly one in five people talked about how important it is for activists to listen to communities in order to get anything done--without a single one of these people indicating what they had learned by listening.

Then came the admission (from a leader named Josh) that the community of environmental activists in Austin is so fragmented that it's hard to organize collective action. Lots of people followed up on his remarks to lament that fragmentation, but no suggestions for building coalitions were examined or discussed. Such suggestions were merely "listened to."

My heart sank especially when we heard from Pete, an environmentalist in east Austin (where the population of African-Americans and Latinos is most concentrated). Pete found his way to ATXEJ because he noticed, as a Hispanic living in east Austin, that all the other neighborhoods around town had beautiful parks. Unfortunately, instead of enjoying nicely maintained parks, the people of east Austin have been living with an area called Red Bluff, where garbage and used oil have been illegally dumped for decades.

Pete's premise was perfectly reasonable: All taxpayers in Austin are entitled to decent parks.

But after working with ATXEJ, Pete's perspective seems to have been warped by neoliberalism. He has done a great job of motivating local citizens (and some politicians) to help clean up Red Bluff, but city officials are unwilling to provide the funding that will maintain it--so Pete is currently working with community leaders to figure out how the citizens in the immediate area can raise money on their own to maintain Red Bluff.

This is the lesson that neoliberalism teaches us: Your tax dollars are going to be spent on the elites, so if you want anything for yourself, you'll have to do it on your own.

It's great that Pete tackled the problem of Red Bluff, and it's great that his community is exploring ways to maintain the area. But what isn't great is the persistence of the fundamental injustice underlying the problem (the fact that wealthier, whiter communities throughout Austin will continue to spend tax dollars raised in east Austin on their own parks without supporting Pete's efforts in any way).

So when ATXEJ bills itself as a "safe space," that's probably because it's designed to preserve the privileges associated with the status quo. If you come to ATXEJ with a problem, they'll be happy to suggest ways that you can address the problem--without rocking the boat.

And if you come to them with a solution, such as how to unify the various environmental groups in the city, they'll listen--without doing anything.

This was my first time to attend an ATXEJ meeting, so it's entirely possible that I've formed an incorrect impression of how the organization operates. However, my first impression of ATXEJ is that this is what greenwashing looks like.

Is Austin's Progressive Identity a Sham?

Standing across the street from Austin's NBC affiliate (KXAN), 

Robin S. protests the RNC/DNC duopoly on the presidential debates.

I live in Austin--a city that bills itself as a progressive bastion within the conservative state of Texas. But the more politically engaged I become, the less evidence I see to support this claim.

If alternative parties (such as the Greens and Libertarians) stand a chance anywhere in Texas, it should be in our self-consciously "weird" capital city, which blends the energy of politics, academia, technology, and entertainment. Austinites think of themselves as creative, empowered, and informed. So if any city in Texas should be clamoring for an alternative to the status quo, it should be Austin--right? 

Last evening, NBC aired a Commander-in-Chief Forum in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were presumably encouraged to explain why it's vitally important for all of us, as Americans, to rededicate ourselves to the task of imprisoning ourselves while terrorizing everyone else on the planet.

I didn't see the program because I was outside the local NBC affiliate protesting the fact that neither the Greens' Jill Stein nor the Libertarians' Gary Johnson will be allowed to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.

The email invitation I received to the protest indicated that supporters of Stein and Johnson should gather outside the NBC affiliate at 7 p.m. to let the world know how dissatisfied Americans are with Trump and Clinton as the major party candidates.

Since the email reached me just a few hours before the protest was scheduled to begin, I didn't expect much of a turnout.

In fact, I was one of only three people who showed up. I enjoyed meeting my fellow protestors (Robin and Elliot), but I'm unsure how much of an impact our trio had. When Elliot stepped away for a drink of water and I crossed the street to take the photo above, our protest looked like one man holding one flag.

I'm not sure anyone inside the NBC building even noticed that we were standing outside.

There was no reason for me to be disappointed by low turnout at a last-minute protest, but I was distressed by several things that became clear to me last night.

Problem #1: The invitation that I received from the Green Party yesterday suggested that this protest would be a joint effort between Greens and Libertarians, so I was disappointed to see that no Libertarians at all showed up.

It's not clear to me if the Greens reached out to the Libertarians on a national level or if it was left up to local Greens to reach out to their local Libertarian counterparts. If the message was supposed to be transmitted at the local level, then it would have been helpful for the email generated at the national level to indicate as much. But in any case, there clearly needs to be stronger communication between Greens and Libertarians in Austin. We may not see eye-to-eye on economics, but both Greens and Libertarians see the wars on terror and drugs for what they are: governmental excuses for oppression.

Solution #1: At an upcoming event featuring Martina Salinas, the Green candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner, I hope to find out which of the local Green Party members have the strongest connections to the Libertarian community. If there isn't anyone who fits the bill, I will take it upon myself to become a liaison between Greens and Libertarians because few things are more important in the realm of politics than coalition-building.

Problem #2: There is clearly room for improvement in communication between Greens at the national and local levels. Elliot, the sole official representative of the Green Party at last night's protest, only found out about it after I contacted the local Green office to confirm that the event mentioned in the email was taking place.

Communication breakdowns happen from time to time. Maybe the communication between Greens at the local and national level is better than this event seemed to indicate. But my experience with the Green Party so far in 2016 (including several by-the-seat-of-the-pants events in Philadelphia during the DNC) leads me to suspect that the Greens' emphasis on decentralization may be incompatible with the clear channels of communication necessary for effective organization at the national level.

Solution #2: I'm not familiar enough with the Green ethos to diagnose or address this communication problem on my own. However, I think the rise of various YouTube personalities may provide us with an organic solution. As more people turn their attention to YouTubers such as Tim Black (of Progressive News), Mike Figueredo (of The Humanist Report), Debbie Lusignan (of The Sane Progressive), Will Gaillard (of Let the Madness Begin), and Joshua (of New Progressive Voice), the conversation that we all need to have with each other will become part of the fabric of our lives.

The progressive movement sparked by Bernie Sanders' candidacy is visibly losing steam by the day as the community of his supporters becomes ever more fragmented. When Sanders lost New York, we all held our breath for California. When Sanders endorsed Clinton before the convention, we held our breath for something magical (e.g. the death of the TPP) to happen in conjunction with Clinton's nomination. When Clinton's nomination became official, we held our breath for Tim Canova to defeat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. No matter how many times we move the goalpost, we keep failing to reach it. We're becoming demoralized in exactly the way the system is set up to demoralize us--and the temptation to check out of the political process only becomes stronger.

Solution #3: We need to set clear and achievable goals. If we can't set them collectively, then we must set them individually. Once we start reaching our individual goals on a regular basis, we'll find the energy to tackle collective goals again. But if we rely on other people for a sense of achievement, then we're at the mercy of factors beyond our control. Instead of resolving to get Martina Salinas elected as Railroad Commissioner, I'll figure out what goal I can set for myself to help get her elected. Even if Salinas doesn't win, I need to do something I've never done, learn something new, establish contacts I didn't have previously, and be in a better position to make a difference for the next Green candidate I can support at the local or state level.

The moral of the story is that the worst response I could have to last night's feeble protest would be to blame the Greens for not being more organized or the city of Austin for not being more progressive. If the Greens are indeed poorly organized, then it's important for me to recognize that deficiency and do what I can to help improve communications. If Austin is a sham progressive city, then it's important for me to recognize that reality and address it.

What could I have done to make last night's protest more effective? I could have reached out to the Libertarians. Next time, I will.

That's one positive step. If we put enough of those together, we have a path to a coalition. If we put enough coalitions together, then we have a shot at changing the system.

If you have better suggestions for what I should do, please leave your advice in a comment. And if you know any person or organization in Austin that I should contact, I'll be grateful for the tip.

Is Our Revolution a Step in the Right Direction--or an Aimless Lurch Meant to Dissipate Our Energy?

House parties for Our Revolution were held throughout the country last night. My wife and I hosted one such event attended by seven people:

From left: Liz, Michael, Marnia (hostess), Karina, Amanda, Paul, Amy, & Toni.

We gathered to watch a livestream from Vermont that featured Bernie Sanders and a number of other speakers.

None of us knew what to expect, but the livestream managed to disappoint expectations nevertheless.

Most of us had already heard about the resignations within Our Revolution following the appointment of Jeff Weaver as president of the organization. Weaver's commitment to raising revenue in traditional ways for spending on traditional television advertising troubles lots of folks for various reasons. From my own perspective, it is primarily objectionable because it fails to recognize that grassroots movements in the era of corporate media can only be successful to the extent that they subvert and defy that corporate media. The last thing we need to be doing is pouring millions of our own dollars into the very machine that is stifling our agenda.

Hours before the livestream even began, Debbie Lusignan put together a video in which she asked Our Revolution and Bernie Sanders to get out of the way of those of us who seek the large-scale changes that Sanders advocated throughout his campaign. I thought her video was unjustifiably harsh before the livestream aired.

Afterward, I could only conclude that Lusignan was prescient.

Some of the comments on the livestream from YouTube viewers reflected my own frustration as I watched Sanders rehash much of his stump speech. No one watching needed to be persuaded of the fact that we Americans must transform our nation from a marketplace into a society by seeking social, economic, racial, and environmental justice. We all share a sense of urgency concerning that task, and we need to discuss the best plans for achieving that goal.

Sanders could have explained why hiring Weaver (over the objections of the thirteen leading organizers who opposed Weaver's appointment) would help to achieve that goal. Instead, he told an aw-shucks story about how he had met Weaver.

Although Sanders never stooped to pleading for support of Hillary Clinton, he pointed to the non-binding platform document of the Democratic Party as evidence of some kind of progress. He even went so far as to assert that anyone who thinks that platform will simply gather dust in the coming years is "mistaken."

Color me mistaken.

I didn't need to hear about Republican governors who are suppressing the vote. I didn't need to hear about Democratic candidates who have agreed to advocate free tuition at state institutions of higher learning.

In fact, most Sanders supporters are sick of talking about the wrong things the GOP does and the right things the DNC says.

We're ready for a drastic departure from politics-as-usual. We're ready to knock on doors and pass out fliers. We're ready to phonebank, facebank, and textbank. We're ready to sacrifice our time and energy in the name of getting the right people elected. So what we needed to see from Sanders in the livestream was a demonstration of the vetting method that Our Revolution would be using to steer us towards supporting the right candidates in our local elections.

Instead, we got . . . it's not entirely clear what we got.

But whatever we got, it wasn't very helpful. Our guests stuck around for more than an hour after the livestream to discuss the practical steps we can take to make Austin as progressive as it pretends to be. Nothing that anyone said built on the livestream in any way. When the conversation stopped (a little before 11 p.m.), it was because people needed to get to bed--not because we were finished talking. 

If we had spent more time talking to each other and less time watching the livestream, we probably could have cobbled together a concrete plan of action before dispersing.

We hope to finish our conversation via email. And in fairness, even if the livestream from Our Revolution was largely a waste of time in terms of the content it provided, the house party did at least manage to put Marnia and me in touch with some knowledgeable and energetic people here in east Austin. 

But since it also put us in touch with some reluctant Hillary supporters who continue to bash Jill Stein as an "anti-science" candidate, I want to close this blog post by linking to an article from Counterpunch concerning "media as propaganda." Peter Lavenia's purpose in the article is to refute claims that Stein is "anti-vax" and "anti-wifi," but his larger claim about the propagandizing role of media only makes it harder for me to understand why people like Sanders and Weaver and even Stein herself continue to believe that the best way to reach people with their message is to give millions of dollars to the very organizations that are working overtime to distort and discredit that message.

Nina Turner, Will You Be My Representative?

You’re obviously a busy person, Ms. Turner. For all I know, you may be preparing for the vice-presidency—so I’ll make my case as quickly as possible.

Will you please be my representative?

Understandably, since you’re from Ohio, you probably haven’t thought of being a representative from Austin, Texas. But my wife and I have a guest suite upstairs that we’ll be happy to rent to you for $1/month to help you meet the necessary residency requirements. (Since you travel full-time anyway, it’s less important to focus on amenities such as a private bath and sitting area than the fact that the zip code would do the trick for residency.) 

I know; I know. Texas probably terrifies you. With people like Ted Cruz dominating the headlines, our state looks a lot more backward than it is.

But you often go out of your way in speeches to quote the great Barbara Jordan, who passed away in Austin in 1996 and is still beloved by the community—so much so that the Home Depot where I sometimes shop is located on Barbara Jordan Boulevard. 

Jordan spoke, as you know, of an “America as good as its promise.” And when she served as the acting governor of the state for one day in 1972, she allowed Texas to become the only state in U.S. history with a black female governor. 

I swear to you the Texas of Jordan’s days hasn’t died—despite the insane appearance given off by Governors Perry and Abbott and Senators Cruz and Cornyn. 

As you probably know, the voters of Texas—especially in the Austin area—have been gerrymandered into irrelevance. Our representatives are elected despite the people and not because of the people.

We need to create a Texas as good as its promise, but our elected officials are standing in the way.

Even though I live in true-blue Austin, my current representative is Mike McCaul, who represents the interests of Houston (which is several hours away). Thanks to the criminal mapping of congressional districts, tens of thousands of Austinites go without representation in Congress because McCaul doesn’t care about our votes. He knows he can rely on oil money to keep him in office as he promotes the agenda of the surveillance state. As the second wealthiest member of Congress, McCaul is less a tool than a personification of special interests.

He’s been in office since 2004. I know it’s too late for you to challenge him in 2016, when he’ll be going up against the same Democratic opponent for the third time in a row (a candidate whom he keeps crushing so badly that the only conceivable explanation for nominating her yet again is that Democrats are less dedicated to winning than to dodging the expense of generating new campaign materials for a different candidate). If we are serious about challenging McCaul in 2018, we need someone with star power—someone who can get voters excited about standing up to the elected officials who refuse to represent them—someone like you.

We need a true Berniecrat. Please help!