viernes, 1 de junio de 2012

App scans faces of bar-goers to guess age, gender

Posted: 10:44am on May 19, 2012; Modified: 2:03pm on May 19, 2012

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/05/19/1945798/app-scans-faces-of-bar-goers-to.html#storylink=cpy


Bar Face Scanners
Cole Harper, co-founder and CEO of SceneTap, holds up a phone showing the app SceneTap at a bar in San Francisco, Thursday, May 17, 2012. A new app is scheduled to launch in San Francisco this weekend that will scan the faces of patrons in 25 bars across the city to determine their ages and genders. The app’s makers, Austin, Texas-based SceneTap, say the app doesn’t identify specific individuals, but privacy advocates have their doubts. JEFF CHIU — AP Photo
A watchful eye has arrived on San Francisco's bar scene, but not to keep you in check. It just wants to check you out.
A new app launched this weekend that will scan the faces of patrons in 25 bars across the city to determine their ages and genders. Would-be customers can then check their smartphones for real-time updates on the crowd size, average age and men-to-women mix to decide whether the scene is to their liking.
The Austin, Texas-based makers of SceneTap say the app doesn't identify specific individuals or save personal information. But in a city known for its love of both libations and civil liberties, a backlash erupted even before the first cameras were switched on from bar-goers who said they would boycott any venue with SceneTap installed.
SceneTap's ability to guess how old people are and whether they're men or women relies on advances in a field known as biometrics. A camera at the door snaps your picture, and software maps your features to a grid. By measuring distances such as the length between the nose and the eyes and the eyes and the ears, an algorithm matches your dimensions to a database of averages for age and gender.
SceneTap CEO Cole Harper says the app doesn't invade patrons' privacy because the only data it stores is their estimated ages and genders and the time they arrived - not their images or measurements.
"Nothing that we do is collecting personal information. It's not recorded, it's not streamed, it's not individualized," Harper said.
Whether the company's promises are comforting or SceneTap still seems creepy, it portends a near future when any camera-equipped smartphone will have the ability to recognize faces with a click of the virtual shutter.
Already the iPhone's camera app will highlight a person's face on the screen with a green box before the picture is even snapped. And Apple's iPhoto software will try to recognize the faces of the people in users' pictures to categorize photos automatically by who's in the shot.
Facebook also uses facial recognition software that tries to identify any friends in a photo a user uploads.
SceneTap's San Francisco debut came the same day Facebook went public. Privacy experts say social media has played a major role in making it easier to attach a face to a name.
"Ten years ago if I walked down the street and took a picture of someone I didn't know, there was little I could do to find out who that person was. Today it's a very different story," said Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who focuses on surveillance technology and privacy.
Tien says facial recognition technology has advanced to the point that having your picture taken potentially offers up the same degree of identifying information as giving someone your fingerprints. Computer programs can break down high-resolution images in minute detail to identify the distinctive features of individual faces.
Those patterns, rather than the images themselves, make possible the tracking of individuals even without knowing who they are. In theory, a program could also match that pattern to identifiable online images such as a Facebook profile picture.
The threat to privacy from an app like SceneTap depends not just on what's being stored but how easily the system could be converted to become more intrusive, whether by a hacker or under a court order.
"Even if everything is happening the way it is supposed to, then the next question is, gee, is that good enough?" Tien said. "Is that something that you're comfortable with?"
Along with the visual images being deleted nearly as soon as they're snapped, SceneTap's sensors aren't sophisticated enough to recognize individual faces in any case, Harper said. Detecting basic characteristics like gender and age takes much less digital work than identifying individuals, he said.
The 28-year-old CEO argues SceneTap doesn't come close to intruding on personal privacy the way many other ubiquitous technologies already do. Many bars already have video cameras that record customers' every move, creating an archive that could, for example, be subpoenaed in court. And anyone who uses Facebook or Gmail is turning over reams of sensitive personal information to large companies every day.
SceneTap's business plan also hinges on the data it collects. Facebook and Google make money by targeting individuals as precisely as possible. Harper says SceneTap only has the combined data on bar customers' genders and ages. The company hopes advertisers will ultimately covet that data to target bar-goers through the app. The bars themselves can use the statistics to determine what mix of people come in when to adjust their inventories, advertising and promotions, Harper said.
SceneTap is already in use in six other cities across the country, including Chicago and several college towns.
Charles Hall, general manager of Bar None in San Francisco's Marina District, said he decided to install SceneTap to give potential customers another way to interact with the business. He said his decision to use it depended on the company's promise that no information was being collected on individuals.
"I have nothing to gain from doing something that people are going to be up in arms about," Hall said the day before the official launch.
A few hours later, the bar briefly got cold feet because of the negative attention SceneTap had received in the local media. But as of 10 p.m. Friday night, Bar None was "lively," according to the app: a little less than half full, a nearly even mix of sexes, average age 22.
n+1
American Politics 
30 APRIL 2012

Leaving Wall Street

When some people think about Wall Street, they conjure up images of traders shouting on the stock exchange, of bankers dining at five star restaurants, of CEOs whispering in the ears of captured Congress members. 
When I think about Wall Street, I think about its stunted rainbow of pale pastel shirts. I think about the vaulting, highly secured, and very cold lobbies. And I think about the art passed daily by the harried workers, virtually unseen. 
Before I occupied Wall Street, Wall Street occupied me. What started as a summer internship led to a seven-year career. During my time on Wall Street, I changed from a curious college student full of hope for my future, into a cynical, bitter, depressed, and exhausted “knowledge worker” who felt that everyone was out to screw me over.
The culture of Wall Street is pervasive and contagious. While there are Wall Street employees who are able to ignore it, or block it out, I was not one of them. I drank the Kool Aid. I’m out of it now. But I’d like to tell you what it was like. 

When you are wealthy and successful, you have a choice. You can believe your success stems from luck and privilege, or you can believe it stems from hard work. Very few people like to view their success as a matter of luck. And so, perhaps understandably, most people on Wall Street believe they have earned their jobs, and the money that follows.
While there are many on Wall Street who come from wealthy backgrounds, there are also many people from very humble backgrounds. In my experience, it is often those who do not come from privilege who are the system’s fiercest defenders. 
When I was a summer intern, we met with various executives who’d tell us about their careers and pitch us on the firm. The aim was to sell the firm to everyone, even though only a few of us would ultimately be offered full-time positions at the firm. It had an element of redundancy to it, since we were clearly already interested in the firm, or we wouldn’t be there at all. The effect of these talks, then, was to make a competitive situation even more competitive. Welcome to Wall Street. One executive described the firm as a “Golden Springboard.” If we began our careers there, his reasoning went, there wasn’t anywhere we couldn’t go. The executive was right. Background becomes irrelevant once you have “made it” to Wall Street. Once you’ve gotten in the door, you’re one of “us.”

Once hired, the cultural indoctrination begins in earnest, especially for those recent grads who begin their careers in “analyst training programs.” These programs are exclusively for college and graduate students, are often several months long, and are custom-tailored to the department you’ll ultimately join. The Sales & Trading analyst program is more competitive than, say, the Technology training program. And while most of the training is job-specific, there is also an air of finishing school. A trader friend of mine was instructed not only in the mathematics of the financial markets, but also in wine tasting and golf. You are trained, but also you are groomed.
The grooming is not all fun and games and country clubs. Most of the message revolves around how hard everyone works, and how hard you are expected to work in turn. Wall Street views its own work ethic as legendary. Sixty-hour weeks are standard. An ex-boss of mine used to brag that for one six-year stretch he never took a sick day or a vacation. The streak ended when he contracted strep throat, refused to go to the doctor, and eventually had to be hospitalized (at least so he claimed). 
While not everyone was as manic as my boss (Wall Street has more than its fair share of laziness and incompetence), even those who feel less committed to the job still buy into a concept of “face time.” It’s not right to leave your desk before a certain time. An ex-colleague of mine used to ask anyone who’d pass by his cubicle before 7pm on their way out the door, “Oh, half day today?”
This dueling masochism/machismo brings with it a tremendous superiority complex. People on Wall Street truly believe they work harder than anyone else. When confronted with the stark reality of, for example, a single mom working two jobs, the response is usually some variant of, “Well, if they’d only worked as hard as I did in school . . .”
But the key to truly understanding superiority on Wall Street is by looking at how it’s measured: with cold, hard numbers. Numbers can be amplified by honest work, but they can also be amplified by betrayal, manipulation, and cheating. And when everything is a cold cost-benefit analysis, why wouldn’t you break regulations—provided you knew the profits you stood to make would dwarf the fines you would pay should you get caught?

On Wall Street, the best-paid employees actively seek out their “market value” by interviewing and cultivating job offers at competing firms. Once they’ve secured an offer, they go back to their boss and try to land what’s called a “counter-offer.” If the new firm is offering to pay $300,000, the old firm may counter that offer with $400,000.
But even in this game of betrayal, a little bit of lying will optimize your results. You can solicit a counter by handing in a resignation letter. But to resign and then accept a counter is to admit you’re a mercenary. This will get you labeled a “high flight risk.” No, playing the game correctly to maximize money means pretending the game is not about money at all. A more strategic route is to explain, “Well, this offer just fell into my lap, I really don’t want to leave, so is there anything you can do to help me out?”
Of course, manipulation isn’t only for tricking your bosses—it extends to the clients as well. On Wall Street, it is not frowned upon to “rip the faces off” one’s own clients. If the client is dumb enough to get hoodwinked, that means the client didn’t work hard enough. He didn’t do his “due diligence.” In other words, if I screw you, you only have yourself to blame. That is the “zero-sum game” of trading.
But perhaps the zenith of Wall Street fitness is the unpunished cheat. Around the holiday season, inter-dealer brokers will send gifts to the traders, trying to curry favor with bottles of wine or champagne. Inter-dealer brokers are brokers who allow Wall Street banks to anonymously trade with one another, since the last thing you want to do if you’re Morgan Stanley is let Goldman Sachs know your position, though you may still want to trade with them. But there is a catch to the gift-giving: according to FINRA, Wall Street’s self-regulatory agency, the brokers are only allowed to spend a maximum of $100 per trader. On slow winter days, the traders would Google the bottles of wine, trying to determine which vendors had cheated. Often they would find that, yes, this vendor breached the limit. The response to the cheat was always the same: a smirk, and an approving nod. It’s not about who cheated. It’s about who cheated successfully. 
This attitude extends to higher stakes games as well. Take the case SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. According to the SEC, in 2007 Citigroup sold their clients a portfolio of assets (mortgage-backed securities, as it happens) that Citi was actively betting against. The SEC therefore charged Citigroup with securities fraud; it’s been reported that the fearsome regulatory agency won’t settle for anything less than a $285 million fine. Looks bad, right? Well, yes, unless you consider that, according to Forbes, Citigroup allegedly made $160 million on this one deal (investors lost $700 million). Citigroup looks like it’s going to lose $125 million! But how many similar deals have gone un-prosecuted? If the answer is one, Citigroup is back in the black; if the answer is, as surely it must be, more than one, then Citigroup is doing very well, thank you.
This is why paying fines when you are caught breaking the rules is simply deemed “the cost of doing business” on Wall Street. 
Poker is extremely popular across Wall Street, and provides an instructive lesson. The book Poker Winners Are Different by industrial psychologist and poker adviser Alan Schoonmaker presents a scenario where a player notices his best friend’s “tell”—that is, the best friend has a habit of showing when he has a good or bad hand. The book then poses the following dilemma: should you (a) tell your friend, (b) win a bit of money from him, and then tell him, or (c) exploit your friend, never telling him. The correct answer: screw your friend. Schoonmaker, who used to do “management development” work at Merrill Lynch, writes that winners will “do whatever the rules and ethics allow to maximize their profits.” This behavior is heralded in poker and it’s heralded on Wall Street. Despite what may be emblazoned on plaques or in mission statements, the ethics of Wall Street are purely about winning at any cost. 

If they didn’t know it going in, Wall Street employees quickly learn that even their company is an enemy. To the firm, employees are a cost to be minimized, or a producer to be exploited. You also learn that you must never show gratitude for your bonus. To appear satisfied with your compensation is to admit that they paid you more than they had to, so you must feign outrage no matter what. What happens to a culture that discourages gratitude? 
But most people on Wall Street do not feel gratitude anyway. It does not matter that their compensation is enormous compared to the average American—that is not who a Wall Street worker is comparing themselves to. They are looking at the compensation of the top sales person, the top trader, or, at the very top, the CEO
What this environment did to me is that I began to see everyone as a threat. From that idiot two cubicles down from me, to the moron on the other end of the phone (the client), to—more than anything—the faceless, imagined people on government assistance who I assumed (incorrectly) were what was causing such large percentages to disappear from my paycheck. 
Many of the adverse reactions to OWS have been along the lines of, “They’re just jealous.” Of course the Wall Street critics think OWS is about envy. Envy is part and parcel of their daily lives. When you are living in a culture of envy, you see envy everywhere you go. Why wouldn’t you think envy is at the core of our movement, too?

The envy and hostility of Wall Street leads many to a common goal: to amass enough money so as to enact your revenge. This end goal is called fuck-you money. 
At one point in my career, I was being recruited by a hedge fund. During the recruitment process, one of my interviewers frankly described the fund’s founder—his boss’s boss—as a “spoiled brat billionaire.” My interviewer related a story about a meeting between the hedge fund and an executive at a company the fund wanted to work with. At one point, the visiting executive made statements the fund founder didn’t like. The founder turned to the visitor and said, “So, you came here just to try and fuck me over?” The visitor quickly stormed out in a rage. But the founder wasn’t satisfied just yet. He followed the man out of the room, into the elevator, shouted the entire ride down, and then yelled at him in the lobby until he finally left the building. When the founder came back upstairs to greet his shaken employees, he said, invigorated and beaming, “Wasn’t that fun?!” 
This is Wall Street’s equivalent of the American Dream: to earn enough money so that you can behave in a way that makes the very existence of other people irrelevant.

Despite the toxicity I’ve described, Wall Street is not a collection of 1 percenters maniacally laughing at the 99 percent they have crushed under their boot. No, Wall Street is far too self-absorbed to be concerned with the outside world unless it is forced to. But Wall Street is also, on the whole, a very unhappy place. While there is always the whisper that maybe you too can one day earn fuck-you money, at the end of a long day, sometimes all you take with you are your misguided feelings of self-righteousness.
I am far from the only Wall Street employee ever to feel chewed up by the system, even as I worked to perpetuate it. Another ex-Wall Street employee described feeling like a “hyper-specialized pawn” who “worked all the time with little control” of her life, and “little personal satisfaction at the end of the day.” I, too, felt manipulated, and why shouldn’t I? That was the game, after all. I felt overworked, demotivated, and I was clearly doing nothing to help the world. 
I was able to leave once I decided that my happiness was more valuable than money. This is no great revelation to anyone at Occupy, but to someone who lived and breathed the idea that money was everything for seven years, it was not so easy. The true key to getting out was taking off my blinders: meeting others who were outside Wall Street’s bubble. This was a long process that involved a lot of psyching myself up in order to quit. Wall Street is not an easy place to walk away from. But after a year of planning, I finally submitted my resignation. I now teach computer programming at several venues, including Girl Develop It, which is a group that provides low-cost classes to women (men are welcome, too) in an environment that strives to be non-intimidating.
It is hard to contrast the joy of community I feel at Occupy Wall Street with the isolation I felt on Wall Street. It’s hard because I cannot think of two more disparate cultures. Wall Street believes in, and practices, a culture of scarcity. This breeds hoarding, distrust, and competition. As near as I can tell, Occupy Wall Street believes in plenty. This breeds sharing, trust, and cooperation. On Wall Street, everyone was my competitor. They’d help me only if it helped them. At Occupy Wall Street, I am offered food, warmth, and support, because it’s the right thing to do, and because joy breeds joy. 
I was privileged enough to make it in the door on Wall Street, and to get bonuses during my time there. But I never felt as fortunate, or joyful, as I did the night after the eviction of Occupy Wall Street from Liberty Square, when we had our first post-raid General Assembly. When the thousands of supporters who filled the park necessitated three waves of the people’s mic. When our voices together echoed not just down the park, but up into the sky as the buildings caused the sound to ricochet off their glass walls. 
And so I say to my friends who still dwell behind the Wall: come join us. The spoils of money can never match the joys of community. When you’re ready, we’ll be here.
The author is a member of the Occupy the SEC working group and the Break Up B of A campaign in New York.
Arun Gupta
AL JAZEERA
Arun Gupta 
Arun Gupta is a co-founder of The Indypendent and The Occupied Wall Street Journal. He covers the Occupy movement nationwide for Salon.
What happened to the Occupy movement?

Although media coverage has dwindled, Occupy cells are alive and well all over the United States - and beyond.
Last Modified: 23 May 2012 04:31

Police cleared New York's Zuccotti Park, and the movement has reportedly struggled to find more organising space
Occupy Wall Street was at the pinnacle of its power in October 2011, when thousands of people converged at Zuccotti Park and successfully foiled the plans of billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg to sweep away the occupation on grounds of public health. From that vantage point, the Occupy movement appears to have tumbled off a cliff, having failed to organise anything like a general strike on May Day - despite months of rumblings of mass walkouts, blockades and shutdowns.
The mainstream media are eager to administer last rites. CNN declared "May Day fizzled", the New York Postsneered "Goodbye, Occupy" and the New York Times consigned the day's events to fewer than 400 words, mainly about arrests in New York City.

Historians and organisers counter that the Occupy movement needs to be seen in relative terms. Eminent sociologist Frances Fox Piven, co-author of Poor People's Movements, says:
"I don't know of a movement that unfolds in less than a decade. People are impatient, and some of them are too quick to pass judgment. But it's the beginning, I think, of a great movement. One of a series of movement that has episodically changed history, which is not the way we tell the story of American history."
Brooke Lehman, a central figure in the anti-corporate globalization movement a decade ago, says:
"Compared to a year ago, the level of activity is amazing today. There is a whole new generation of high school and college students being radicalised."
Others note that protests did take place in more than 110 cities on May Day in recognition of worker resistance and solidarity, no mean feat given the hostility to labour among the ruling elite i the US. At the same time, only shameless partisans would deny that the Occupy movement is struggling to reclaim the heights it had last year, and many activists admit this in private. Some argue that police and media hostility act as a one-two punch that can knock out movements such as Occupy, and this is all too true, as explained below. But other movements surmount these obstacles. North of the US-Canada border, hundreds of thousands of university students in Quebec have maintained a militant strike for three months against tuition increases in defiance of whip-cracking politicians, pundits and police.
Lack of 'space'

The real stumbling block for the Occupy movement is also the reason for its success: space, or now, the lack thereof. Understanding the significance of political space and Occupy's inability to recapture it reveals why the movement is having difficulty re-gaining traction.
In-depth coverage of the global movement
Americans have become so enmeshed in the transience of work, life, housing, play, finance and the proliferation of virtual spaces that it is easy to forget taking collective action in a shared physical space is how social change happens from below. Take the labour movement. The history of industrial workers' struggle starts with the insight that capitalists are their own undoing, by amassing workers in a common space - the factory - where they become aware of their common interests, as well as their potential power to stop the machinery of capital. The same is true of student movements. The shared educational space can unite students around common grievances and goals. And for the civil rights movement, black churches played a pivotal role.

Now, Occupy Wall Street differs in that it appropriated a private-public park and reconfigured it as a political space. It was a manifestation of the central concept of the Occupy movement: there can be no political democracy without economic democracy. Its potency sprang from the same source as the Arab Spring, Spain's Indignados and the Wisconsin labour uprising - peacefully liberating public space and governing it through participatory democracy.
Before this social contagion first surfaced in Tunisia in late 2010, the previous moment of a mass global outburst was Feb, 15, 2003, the day of protests against the impending US invasion of Iraq. That was the problem: it was only a day with no bottom-up democratic essence. Not only could Bush shrug it off as a "focus group", the protests could be twisted as legitimacy for aggressor states - because they allowed space for democratic dissent in contrast to the terror of Saddam Hussein.
Colonised by consumption

Anti-war protest has little impact anymore, because it has devolved into gathering on a weekend in the political capital, marching around empty streets with pre-printed signs, mouthing toothless chants and listening to cliched speeches. It is too predictable and too easy to ignore, by rulers who are insulated from the ruled by dollars and truncheons. On the other hand, occupying space in the heart of a city without end is a challenge to state power.

One activist said of the encampment on Wall Street: "At any moment, you could call for an impromptu march on Goldman Sachs and a hundred people would join you." The night of October 5, 2011, was a spectacular example of this. After a union-led rally in downtown Manhattan, thousands of people surged through the financial district in breakaway marches for hours. With so many people in the streets feeling the wind of public support at their backs, Wall Street felt fragile and the New York Police Department was under siege.

Keeping a space continually, and using democratic forms of self-governance recreates the commons, which has been colonised over decades by full-spectrum consumption - shopping, eating, drinking, entertainment and paid spectacle. Occupy Wall Street attracted throngs of journalists and the curious because it was a completely different spectacle. It was a miniature society that rejected the private, individualism and capitalism. The scene of hundreds of people exchanging food, art, music, knowledge, politics, healthcare, shelter, anger, ideas, skills and love was unlike anything else in our consumer societies - because not one exchange was lubricated by money (of course the goods were paid for at some point). Within the occupation, thousands shared the experience of having a direct democratic stake in a society they were helping to build from scratch.

These democratic societies, more than 300 of which popped up around the United States by October 2011, propelled Occupy by enticing a huge number of political neophytes to join an organic movement. The real power of a social movement, from the 1960s to the Tea Party, is not to recombine existing activists in a new formation but to bring in the previously non-political. At occupations, experienced organisers marvelled at the ability to have meaningful conversations with people of radically different backgrounds and politics. Having visited nearly 40 occupations across the US, I encountered many self-identified conservatives and Republicans and even a few Tea Party members who said they were part of the 99 per cent.
"Occupy is very odd right now. The people who have stayed are the cream of the crap, and the brilliant. The rank-and-file in between are at home."
- Ruth Fowler, writer with Occupy LA
It was the Occupy movement that created the people - "the 99 per cent" - not the other way around. The range of politics and issues ran the gamut, but having the space for collective discussion gave occupiers the time to coalesce around the idea that society's problems stem from the concentration of wealth and power among "the one per cent". Thus, those who lack healthcare, had homes foreclosed upon, are unemployed, stuck in low-wage jobs, are homeless, subject to repressive immigration laws, burdened with student debt, opposed to destructive energy extraction or angered by corporate personhood and a political system corrupted by money could find common cause and unite against a common enemy.
Media blackout

But it wasn't just anger. Different visions of society blossomed in the space. As Michael Premo of Occupy Wall Street, puts it: "You don't know how to dream unless you see it sometimes. The occupation unlocked the creative, radical imagination." Seeing different ways of organising work and community has kick-started innumerable projects around the country, such as urban farming, community centres, workers cooperatives, free schools and housing reclamation.

That's all changed. While a few scattered occupations remain in the political hinterlands - cities such as Little Rock and Tallahassee - every other one has been booted out of the collective space over the past six months. In many cities, most prominently New York, the general assemblies have disintegrated, because the democratic practice becomes a floating abstraction without the space to anchor it. The space glued the various tendencies together because the decisions were conducted within and concerned the alternate society growing up around them. In cities where the assemblies continue they often draw perhaps one-tenth of the numbers who attended at the peak. Ruth Fowler, a writer who works with Occupy Los Angeles, says: "Occupy is very odd right now. The people who have stayed are the cream of the crap, and the brilliant. The rank-and-file in between are at home."

Despite new activists drifting away, Occupy has hardly disappeared. Nationwide, it is defending homeowners from evictions and disrupting auctions of foreclosed homes. There is a national campaign to force the government to break Bank of America into regional banks. Students are fighting against tuition increases and school cuts and for a moratorium on student debt. Occupiers are working with unions to battle corporations cutting wages and benefits. And many Occupy groups have joined movements for single-payer healthcare and against environmentally destructive oil and gas drilling.

David Solnit, who works with Occupy San Francisco, indicates one reason why the Occupy movement appears to have faded away, "Any movement has its mass mobilisation and its in-between times... We need a better measuring tape than numbers and public space and whether it's amplified through media owned by the one per cent."
Simply put, corporate media are inclined to dismiss a movement that wants to chop up corporations - if not eliminate them entirely. A study by two sociologists backs this up. Surveying more than 2,200 US newspapers, Jackie Smith and Patrick Rafail found coverage of the Occupy movement has dwindled to a trickle since November, despite hundreds of active Occupy groups, thousands of organising projects and extensive May Day activity. Even more telling, newspaper coverage of inequality has shrunk by nearly 70 per cent since autumn.
State repression
One can debate whether or not Occupy is still effective, but there is no way to deny income and wealth inequalities have reached historical extremes or that two-thirds of all in the US - and 55 per cent of Republicans - say "there are 'very strong' or 'strong' conflicts between the rich and the poor," according to the Pew Research Center.
"Coverage of the Occupy movement has dwindled to a trickle... despite hundreds of active Occupy groups... Newspaper coverage of inequality has shrunk by nearly 70 per cent since last fall."
The media indifference extends to downplaying state repression. Ironically, force is a measure of success because it's recognition that the movement is a threat:
  • In Oakland, police rolled out a tank on May Day
  • Chicago has increased penalties for protests and made it more difficult to secure permits in advance of the anti-NATO protests
  • University of California officials are pushing for charges against 11 students and one poetry professor that carry 11 years of prison time and million-dollar fines for nonviolent sit-down protests against Bank of America
  • Most ominously, the FBI, which was forged in the crucible of the post-World War I Red Scare, is up to its old tricks. Relying on the same techniques it uses to ensnare Muslims in "terrorism" plots, the FBI arrested five anarchists in Cleveland for allegedly plotting to blow up a bridge
  • Most recently, one activist in Salt Lake City claimed three FBI agents showed up at his home, unannounced, asking for names of people planning on attending the anti-NATO protests in Chicago
The repression is aimed at preventing Occupy from reclaiming a space, which novelist Arundhati Roy predicted months ago: "Holding territory may not be something the [Occupy] movement will be allowed to do in a state as powerful and violent as the United States." Since March, Occupy Wall Street has tried to retake public spaces in Lower Manhattan four times, and four times the police have cracked down. The most recent attempt, the night of May Day, was met by a massive police presence in Wall Street, with cops threatening anyone who looked like a protester with arrest.
Let it marinate
"Cinematic" is the only way to convey the image of public sidewalks and streets blanketed with thousands of riot police, surveillance units, snatch squads, detectives, beat cops, community police, white-shirted commanders, phalanxes of scooter police, four police helicopters overhead and cars, SUVs, buses, trucks and command vehicles flashing emergency lights. All to clear out a few thousand people, mainly youths, who gathered for a democratic assembly and the faint hope they could recreate the magic of Occupy Wall Street.

Even though I spent hours in the area with other journalists, and was threatened with arrest five times, I did not see one mainstream media account describing the opulent display of police force. Nonetheless, despite the unveiled fist of the state that is written out of the media narrative, movements sometimes do find a way to triumph. As shown by Egypt's democratic uprising, numbers and organisation can force the state not only to back down, it can cause the ruling edifice to fatally crack. This is what happened on October 14, when Occupy Wall Street gathered enough people, allies and media pressure to force Bloomberg and the police to abandon their threat to oust the occupation.

The big question for Occupy is how it can build a dual system of power, as Egyptian activists did over years with revitalised labour organising, a national anti-police brutality movement and politicised youth and women in micro-enterprises that populate urban areas. This requires organisation, but it also gets back to the question of space. Alienation, fragmentation and suspicion is so pervasive in US society that people need secure areas where they can take the time to share stories, to listen and debate, create bonds, forge trust and take action.
The places where Americans can and do gather in large numbers, such as parks, squares, factories, shopping centres, the workplace, stadiums, schools and places of worship are almost all privatised and subject to strict legal and physical regulation. Nonetheless, Occupy's future success is based on finding forms of space where it can reproduce itself.

Until then, Frances Fox Piven is right that movements take a decade or more to have an effect. It took 22 years from A Phillip Randolph's aborted 1941 March on Washington to Martin Luther King Jr's 1963 march that signaled the end of Jim Crow. It was a decade from the first national anti-war march in 1965 to the end of the Vietnam War. It's taken more than 20 years for the LGBT movement to succeed in getting a sitting president to endorse marriage equality.
And just as it took years of labour organising prior to the 1937 sit-down strikes (another form of occupation) that secured collective bargaining rights for unions, the Occupy movement has barely begun.
Arun Gupta is a co-founder of The Indypendent and The Occupied Wall Street Journal. He covers the Occupy movement nationwide for Salon.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.





ALJAZEERA - Middle East

Egypt candidate to seek election suspension

Third-place candidate Hamdeen Sabahi makes vote-rigging allegations as two front-runners seek rivals' support in runoff.
Last Modified: 27 May 2012 16:35
Leftist candidate Hamdeen Sabahi will appeal for Egypt's presidential election to be suspended over alleged voting irregularities and a pending case over one of the front-runner's right to stand, Sabahi's lawyer has said.
Sabahi's pledge to pursue a suspension came on Saturday as the two apparent winners of the first round reached out to rival candidates ahead of a June run-off that appears set to polarise the country.
Final votes were still being counted, but unofficial results suggested that the top two front-runners out of 12 candidates were the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi and Ahmed Shafiq, a former prime minister under Hosni Mubarak.
International monitors have described the initial voting process as "encouraging", in advance of the release of official results by Tuesday.
On Friday night, the Brotherhood said it was seeking to create a coalition of forces to challenge Shafiq, reaching out to Morsi's former rivals, including Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who left the organisation before running for president.
According to Egyptian state television, preliminary results showed Sabahi in third place behind Shafiq and Morsi after this week's first round. Only the top two go through to a runoff on June 16 and 17.
"We will present an appeal on behalf of candidate Hamdeen Sabahi ... to the presidential electoral committee, citing a series of irregularities ... that have affected the outcome of the first round," lawyer Essam El-Islamboly told the Reuters news agency.
Islamboly said the appeal, to be lodged on Sunday or Monday at the latest, would ask the electoral committee to suspend the election until the prosecutor-general had checked a claim by a police officer that the interior ministry had illegally assigned 900,000 votes to Shafiq.
He said Sabahi also wanted the election halted until the constitutional court rules on the validity of an April decision by the electoral committee to disqualify Shafiq.
The committee swiftly lifted its ban on Shafiq, but referred a new law barring top Mubarak-era officials from the race to the constitutional court.

Official complaints
Shafiq, who placed second, says votes cast for him in one province were not included.
Sabahi's appeal to the commission demands a partial vote recount, after he placed third by a margin of 700,000 votes.
Aboul Foutoh, who finished fourth, filed an appeal on Saturday. His lawyer says he has proof that votes were cast on behalf of dead people.
"Sunday is the last day for candidates to file any complaints," Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh reported from Cairo.
"All candidates had the right to have representatives at polling stations during the election to act as monitors and observe the process and then come back with violations perceived during the vote," our correspondent said.

'Revolution' stolen
The choice between Morsi and Shafiq, representing forces that have wrestled for the past six decades, has dismayed many Egyptians who voted for candidates offering a middle ground.
They fear a victory for the 70-year-old Shafiq would end hopes for change ignited by last year's uprising, while a win for Morsi would pitch Egypt into the uncertainties of experimenting with Islamic rule.
In an attempt to broaden support, the Brotherhood's candidate met public figures and political groups on Saturday. But three of the invited presidential candidates, including Sabahi, did not show up.

Speaking after the meeting, Morsi said that his group respected democratic principles, and said that his candidacy was the only way to ensure that Mubarak's regime was not recreated by Shafiq.
"We are certain that the remnants of Mubarak's regime and his gang, and those that belong to it... will fall flat and will land in the rubbish bin of history,'' he said.
The Brotherhood already holds the biggest bloc in parliament after elections completed in January, but has been unable to assert itself against an army-appointed interim government.
Shafiq used similar language at a news conference in which he addressed youth groups that spearheaded last year's revolt. For many voters, however, he represented everything they wanted changed.
"Your revolution has been hijacked and I am committed to bringing [it] back," he told the youth that led the popular uprising in 2011, in an apparent reference to the Muslim Brotherhood, which already controls parliament.
He urged unity for those "who dream and those who are angry, the ambitious and the despondent, the unemployed and the employed, the Muslims, the Copts, the Islamists, the liberals and the leftists".
"Let's build and not seek revenge," he told a news conference.
Much of his rhetoric indirectly targeted the Brotherhood, playing on fears among Egypt's minority Christians and secular liberals that a Morsi presidency would threaten their freedoms.
On Friday, he told Egyptian television he saw no problem with the idea of a Muslim Brotherhood-led government if he were elected president.

Undrafted constitution
The generals who took over when Mubarak quit in February 2011 have promised to make way for a new president by July 1, formally ending a messy and often bloody political transition.
Egyptians elect first new president in post-Mubarak era
But the military, the source of all Egypt's past presidents, is keen to keep its privileges and influence, preferably enshrined in a new constitution.
Political wrangling has held up the drafting process, so the next president will take office not knowing his powers or those of parliament and government.
Shafiq was appointed prime minister during Mubarak's last days in power in a bid to appease the popular revolt that eventually overthrew the longtime leader.
But he has been criticised for his association with the old regime and for having retained many Mubarak ministers in his cabinet, a decision that later forced him to resign under pressure from youth movements that spearheaded the uprising.
Although Morsi finished first in the presidential poll, his share of the vote was unimpressive compared to the Brotherhood's performance in the parliamentary election in which it gained nearly half the seats.

El manual importado para vivir como un porteño más

 
 

25/05/12 - 01:59
Por qué viniste a la Argentina? ¡Es la pregunta del millón! Después de seis años todavía no sé cómo contestar... Por supuesto elaboré una respuesta pero en el fondo me lo sigo preguntando. De manera un poco provocativa que siempre funciona, contesto: “¡Porque amo a la Argentina y a los argentinos... a pesar de todo!”. Creo que desarrollé una cierta admiración por este país que, a la imagen de su geografía, está lleno de contradicciones y gracias al cual, muchas veces, me percato de mi estado de extranjero con cierto regocijo. Vivir en una tierra lejana no es fácil, no todos venimos con la misma tarjeta de presentación y me doy cuenta a diario que ser francés es una bendición. Aprendo a ser fiel a mi país, a proteger su integridad aunque vinculando verdades que descolocan a mis interlocutores. ¿Cómo? ¿Francia no es un paraíso?... depende. Sin embargo entiendo por fin qué es esa famosa “excepción cultural” de la cual hablamos tanto en Francia. Como dramaturgo, y también porque escribo indistintamente en francés y en castellano, me doy cuenta de la importancia de esa herencia cuya primera expresión se refleja a través de un lenguaje altamente rico y sutil. Tal vez nos faltaría la simplicidad.
Cuando llegué no entendí por qué pero, aunque no manejaba el idioma, me sentí instantáneamente como en casa. Me quedé muy sorprendido de encontrar tantos brazos abiertos. ¡El sagrado sentido de la amistad! Pero calculo que llegué en una época donde todavía las cosas eran distintas. El país se recuperaba de una crisis histórica y recién empezaba a abrirse al turismo y recibir extranjeros “europeos” era todavía una cosa nueva. Por supuesto, uno aprende con el tiempo que no todo es tan lindo como parece y me di cuenta rápido que en Buenos Aires la gente sufría de una enfermedad –que ya circulaba en mi Marsella querida– llamada “inconsistencia aguda”. De todos modos el daño ya estaba hecho, me había enamorado de Buenos Aires, de sus terrazas, de sus calles arboladas, de sus milongas, de su arquitectura y de su movida artística ¡Estaba hechizado! No me quedaba otra que encontrar el maridaje entre las costumbres locales que me resultaban difíciles de entender –como la falta de puntualidad o el “sí” que significa “quizás”– y las modalidades de comportamiento social y códigos de buena educación míos, de los cuales no me puedo deshacer. 
Así que disfruto de una de la capitales más enérgicas e hirvientes que conocí. Dentro de ese caos que nos hace quejarnos tanto a diario de las veredas o la inflación me concentro en aprovechar dignamente de una dinámica humana y artística única. Lo que me ofrece esta ciudad con tanta generosidad es sin duda el fundamento de lo que hace que me quede. No podría definir a sus habitantes: hay tantos géneros de porteños como porteños hay. El que viene de afuera, el que viene del interior, el que nació acá, el que quiere quedarse y el que me mira con ojos estupefactos porque desea tanto irse. 
Lamento un poco una cierta falta de civismo y de cohesión nacional, el “amiguismo” argentino se estanca donde empieza la lucha social. Vale para un buen mate, un asado pero nadie baja a la calle... Amo tanto a la Argentina que me pone triste sentir que no la cuidan como se merece. Me entristece ver a un portero que mientras fuma su pucho se cuelga de la manguera y deja correr litros de agua, el estado de los trenes en los que ando regularmente, preguntarme si podría contar con la policía en caso de que me pasara algo. Pero me paro y pienso en todo lo que sufrió el país, en las heridas abiertas que dejaron las últimas décadas y de repente, aunque me duele, lo entiendo.
No sé ni por qué vine ni por qué me quedo, sin embargo extrañaría el encanto bucólico de Palermo, de sus tiendas “fashion”, el voraginoso movimiento de la gente en Once o la calle Corrientes a la noche, donde se juntan lo mejor y lo peor del teatro. Desde que llegué quise ser un porteño más, trabajando como cualquier persona, cobrando en pesos y, así solamente así, pude aprender lo que era esta ciudad, lo que era la vida de un argentino y lo que era ser porteño. Entonces gracias Buenos Aires, gracias Argentina por ser todo lo que sos y darme lo que me das. Yo sé que corre en tus venas una pasión que sólo el tango sabe expresar, por eso te pido por favor que no te olvides de todas las melodías que te convirtieron en un lugar incomparable en América Latina y que te cuides para vos como para tus hijos.