This Powerful Clip Is Exactly Why We Support #OccupyWallStreet

This Powerful Clip Is Exactly Why We Support #OccupyWallStreet

Why even conservative judges can sometimes help workers

Mike Hall brings us this news from the sunny Southwest:

A unanimous New Mexico State Supreme Court said Wednesday that tea party Republican Gov. Susana Martinez overstepped her authority when earlier this year she fired two members and the executive director of Public Employee Labor Relations Board. The New Mexico Federation of Labor (NMFL) filed suit against Martinez’s action.
The court ordered Martinez to reinstate the two fired board members.
The three-person labor board enforces the state’s public employee collective bargaining law and consists of one member chosen by state employee unions, one member chosen by state department heads and one member chosen by the other two members. Although the governor makes the official appointments, the selection process is performed by unions, management and the board itself.
The board also chooses an executive director. It’s not clear what will happen with the executive director’s position. The board could rehire the former director or choose another director.
The Santa Fe New Mexican reports:

The court agreed with arguments by Shane Youtz, who represented the New Mexico Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, that the board should maintain independence from the executive branch because by its very nature it decides cases involving the executive branch.

Youtz told the justices that of 43 cases pending before the board at the time of the firings, 17 directly involved the governor.

I like this story because it illustrates an important point that is sometimes overlooked by progressives, who despair of the labor movement's chances to avoid complete destruction in 21st century America. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has a 5 member majority that is vehemently anti-worker and pro-corporation, doesn't mean that the entire American judiciary shares this extreme bias. The judiciary is indeed an inherently conservative institution, and it does in fact favor the interests of capital over labor 99 times out of 100. Yet precisely because the judiciary is conservative it will sometimes stop or slow down the attempts of the radical far-right to abolish organized labor in our country. Why? Because for many decades in the 20th century, the establishment consensus was that some level of social harmony was best achieved by allowing workers to exercise at least a few minimal rights in the workplace. President Reagan began a process of changing this consensus among Republicans, but the clear precedent, that most judges alive today learned in law school, was that workers should have at least some remedies against the most extreme abuses of their employers.

Clearly the U.S. labor movement desperately needs a massive growth in popular support for their cause, to combat the concerted attack they face from the big-money interests. We all need to work very hard to that end. We may find to our surprise that occasionally conservative (as opposed to batshit insane reactionary) judges will support organized labor. They will do so because, weakened as it is, organized labor is still to them part of the natural order of things, like the rivalry between the Red Sox and Yankees, or fireworks on the 4th of July.

Why we may be thanking OWS in a few years for pushing the envelope today...

Every historical moment is unique. Yet certain themes recur with stunning regularity across space and time. The unholy alliance of excessive economic dominance, and government power, is one such familiar spectacle. If Eugene Debs returned to us tomorrow, he could pretty much dust off the same speech he gave in Chicago on November 22, 1895:

If liberty is a birthright which has been wrested from the weak by the strong, or has been placed in peril by those who were commissioned to guard it as Gheber priests watch the sacred fires they worship, what is to be done? Leaving all other nations, kindred and tongues out of the question, what is the duty of Americans? Above all, what is the duty of American workingmen whose liberties have been placed in peril? They are not hereditary bondsmen. Their fathers were free born—their sovereignty none denied and their children yet have the ballot. It has been called “a weapon that executes a free man’s will as lighting does the will of God.” It is a metaphor pregnant with life and truth. There is nothing in our government it can not remove or amend. It can make and unmake presidents and congresses and courts. It can abolish unjust laws and consign to eternal odium and oblivion unjust judges, strip from them their robes and gowns and send them forth unclean as lepers to bear the burden of merited obloquy as Cain with the mark of a murderer. It can sweep away trusts, syndicates, corporations, monopolies, and every other abnormal development of the money power designed to abridge the liberties of workingmen and enslave them by the degradation incident to poverty and enforced idleness, as cyclones scatter the leaves of the forest. The ballot can do all this and more. It can give our civilization its crowning glory—the co—operative commonwealth.
To the unified hosts of American workingmen fate has committed the charge of rescuing American liberties from the grasp of the vandal horde that have placed them in peril, by seizing the ballot and wielding it to regain the priceless heritage and to preserve and transmit it without scar or blemish to the generations yet to come....
Defeated at every point, their plans all frustrated, out—generaled in tactics and strategy, while the hopes of labor were brightening and victory was in sight, the corporations, goaded to desperation, played their last card in the game of oppression by an appeal to the federal judiciary and to the federal administration. To this appeal the response came quick as lightning from a storm cloud. It was an exhibition of the debauching power of money which the country had never before beheld.
The people had long been familiar with such expressions as “money talks,” “money rules,” and they had seen the effects of its power in legislatures and in congress. They were conversant with Jay Gould’s methods of gaining his legal victories by. “buying a judge” in critical cases. They had tracked this money power, this behemoth beast of prey, into every corporate enterprise evolved by our modern civilization, as hunters track tigers in India jungles, but never before in the history of the country had they seen it grasp with paws and jaws the government of the United States and bend it to its will and make it a mere travesty of its pristine grandeur.
The people had seen this money power enter the church, touch the robed priest at the altar, blotch his soul, freeze his heart and make him a traitor to his consecrated vows and send him forth a Judas with a bag containing the price of his treason; or, if true to his conviction, ideas and ideals, to suffer the penalty of ostracism, to be blacklisted and to seek in vain for a sanctuary in which to expound Christ’s doctrine of the brotherhood of man.
The people had seen this money power enter a university and grasp a professor and hurl him headlong into the street because every faculty of mind, redeemed by education and consecrated to truth, pointed out and illumined new pathways to the goal of human happiness and national glory.
The people had seen this money power practicing every art of duplicity, growing more arrogant and despotic as it robbed one and crushed another, building its fortifications of the bones of its victims, and its palaces out of the profits of its piracies, until purple and fine linen on the one side and rags upon the other side, defined conditions as mountain ranges and rivers define the boundaries of nations—palaces on the hills, with music and dancing and the luxuries of all clinics, earth, air and sea—huts in the valley, dark and dismal, where the music is the dolorous “song of the shirt” and the luxuries rags and crusts.

If not for the pioneering efforts of Eugene Debs, our nation could never have embraced the less radical New Deal of FDR. What we need in 2012 is someone to clearly advocate for working people in the public sphere. Not just in defense of unions, but on behalf of all of us who produce the wealth so greedily snatched up by those who pile it up in their off-shore accounts.

Rep. David Cicilline gets serious

It's too bad more of our congresscritters couldn't learn from these wise words of 1st-term Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI):

"Partisan gridlock, vitriolic rhetoric, and countless scandals have each done their part in recent years to eat away at public confidence in Washington. It’s a sad fact that only 9% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing today according to a CBS News/NY Times poll conducted in October. Regardless of your political views, I think we can all agree that this is not a number we can be proud of.
If we are going to put our country back on the right track, we have to restore public trust by fixing what’s wrong with Washington. That’s why I recently introduced legislation to ban lobbying by members of Congress and announced my support for a series of other reforms to restore faith in government, reduce corporate influence on our political process, and close loopholes that allow Members of Congress to benefit from their positions.
We can’t begin to restore the trust that has been lost between Congress and the American people if we don’t first change the popular perception that too many elected officials see public service only as a means to personal gain. What made the Jack Abramoff investigation so shocking to so many people wasn’t the close relationship between K Street and Capitol Hill as much as the venality and shamelessness of those involved. For too long, people have felt apprehensive about the revolving door that exists between serving in Congress and working as a corporate lobbyist, but they’ve allowed it to continue because they don’t believe they can do anything to stop it.
This is not the case, we can and we must do something about it. Public service is a sacred trust and responsibility, and we need to ensure that it is always treated and viewed as such. One way we can achieve this goal is to prevent former Members of Congress from ever cashing in on their positions by lobbying their former colleagues.

That’s why I recently introduced H.R. 3491, a bill that would impose a lifetime ban on former Members of Congress engaging in lobbying contacts with covered executive branch officials, or any Member, officer, or employee of the House or Senate. Violators would be subject to penalties of up to $50,000 in fines and a year in prison. While existing laws ban Senators from lobbying for two years after leaving office and Members of the House for a year, a lifetime ban is necessary to help ensure that those running for office and serving in our government cannot one day take advantage of their public office to lobby the federal government.
We also know that corporate influence in the political arena extends well beyond lobbying Congress. The Supreme Court’s decision last year in Citizens United opened the floodgates for profligate corporate spending to influence election outcomes. In addition, by opening the door to Independent Expenditure-Only Committees (known as Super PACs), Citizens United allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections without any requirement to disclose their activities. It’s not hard to see just how much of a threat this poses to the basic principle of “one person, one vote.”
I recently joined 25 of my colleagues in the House as a cosponsor of H.J.RES.78, which would reverse Citizens United and amend the Constitution to ensure that Congress and the states retain the right to limit or eliminate corporate spending in elections. The Constitution has been amended numerous times throughout history to protect and expand the voting rights of women, minorities, and young people, and now it’s time to do the same to ensure that the voices of individual voters are not drowned out by wealthy corporate interests.
Lastly, we must ensure that Members of Congress play by the same rules as everyone else. If a corporate executive buys stock based on information not available to the general public, they get sent to jail, but Members of Congress can do the same thing today with impunity. Earlier this year, a study found that from 1985 to 2001, investments made by Members of the House of Representatives performed 6% better than the market each year. In their report, the researchers opined that this performance could be a result of Members of Congress capitalizing on their “access to non-public information that could have a substantial impact on certain businesses, industries or the economy as a whole.”
In order to rebuild public trust, it is imperative for Members of Congress to not even appear as if they are personally benefitting from their public office. I am a cosponsor of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, H.R. 1148, which will make this goal a reality and bar Members of Congress, their staff, and the executive branch from buying or selling securities, commodity futures, or swaps based on information that is not available to the general public. Passing this bill will make it clear that public service is an end in itself, not a means to personal profit.
Even as we face mounting challenges at home and abroad, Washington has continued with business as usual – leaving most people justifiably frustrated and disillusioned with our political process. What it takes to restore faith in our government is simple, but it won’t be easy. Congress will have to enact far-reaching reforms that show we are serious about governing, even if it means giving up some of the personal benefits that come with public service. It’s time we get to work."

As a former Rhode Islander,  who worked on David Cicilline's campaign, I'm proud of the job he's been doing for lil'Rhody. He is also brave to publish this thoughtful piece in last Tuesday's DailyKos, a notoriously liberal website!

More Reichsense

Once again, in his recent post on HuffPost, the shortest Clinton cabinet member, Robert Reich, shows why he's the greatest in intellectual stature:

"Wall Street is its own worst enemy. It should have welcomed new financial regulation as a means of restoring public trust. Instead, it's busily shredding new regulations and making the public more distrustful than ever.

The Street's biggest lobbying groups have just filed a lawsuit against the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, seeking to overturn its new rule limiting speculative trading.

For years Wall Street has speculated like mad in futures markets -- food, oil, other commodities -- causing prices to fluctuate wildly. The Street makes bundles from these gyrations, but they have raised costs for consumers.

In other words, a small portion of what you and I pay for food and energy has been going into the pockets of Wall Street. It's just another hidden redistribution from the middle class and poor to the rich.

The new Dodd-Frank law authorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to limit such speculative trading. The commission considered 15,000 comments, largely from the Street. It did numerous economic and policy analyses, carefully weighing the benefits to the public of the new regulation against its costs to the Street. It even agreed to delay enforcement of the new rule for at least a year.

But this wasn't enough for the Street. The new regulation would still put a crimp in Wall Street's profits.

So the Street is going to court. What's its argument? The commission's cost-benefit analysis wasn't adequate.

At first blush it's a clever ploy. There's no clear legal standard for an "adequate" weighing of costs and benefits of financial regulations, since both are so difficult to measure. And putting the question into the laps of federal judges gives the Street a huge tactical advantage because the Street has almost an infinite amount of money to hire so-called "experts" (some academics are not exactly prostitutes but they have their price) who will use elaborate methodologies to show benefits have been exaggerated and costs underestimated.

It's not the first time the Street has used this ploy. Last year, when the Securities and Exchange Commission tried to implement a Dodd-Frank policy making it easier for shareholders to nominate company directors, Wall Street sued the SEC. It alleged the commission's cost-benefit analysis for the new rule was inadequate.

Last July, a federal appeals court -- inundated by Wall Street lawyers and hired-gun "experts" -- agreed with the Street. So much for shareholders nominating company directors.

Obviously, government should weigh the costs against the benefits of anything it does. But when it comes to the regulation of Wall Street, one overriding cost doesn't make it into any individual weighing: The public's mounting distrust of the entire economic system, generated by the Street's repeated abuse of the public's trust.

Wall Street's shenanigans have convinced a large portion of America that the economic game is rigged.

Yet capitalism depends on trust. Without trust, people avoid even sensible economic risks. They also begin trading in gray markets and black markets. They think that if the big guys cheat in big ways, they might as well begin cheating in small ways. And when they think the game is rigged, they're easy prey for political demagogues with fast tongues and vacuous solutions.

Tally up these costs and it's a whopper.

Wall Street has blanketed America in a miasma of cynicism. Most Americans assume the reason the Street got its taxpayer-funded bailout without strings in the first place was because of its political clout. That must be why the banks didn't have to renegotiate the mortgages of Americans -- many of whom, because of the economic collapse brought on by the Street's excesses, are still under water. Some are drowning.

That must be why taxpayers didn't get equity stakes in the banks we bailed out -- as Warren Buffet got when he bailed out Goldman Sachs. That means when the banks became profitable gain we didn't get any of the upside gains; we just padded the Street's downside risks.

The Street's political clout must be why most top Wall Street executives who were bailed out by taxpayers still have their jobs, have still avoided prosecution, are still making vast fortunes -- while tens of millions of average Americans continue to lose their jobs, their wages, their medical coverage, or their homes.

And why the Dodd-Frank bill was filled with loopholes big enough for Wall Street executives and traders to drive their ferrari's through.

The cost of such cynicism has leeched deep into America, causing so much suspicion and anger that our politics has become a cauldron of rage. It's found expression in Tea Partiers and Occupiers, and millions of others who think the people at the top have sold us out. And it causes some Americans to be attracted to demagogues offering fast talk and whacky ideas.

Every week, it seems, we learn something new about how Wall Street has screwed us. Last week we heard from Bloomberg News (that had to go to court for the information) that in 2009 the Street's six largest banks borrowed almost half a trillion dollars from the Fed at nearly zero cost -- but never disclosed it.

In early 2009, after Citigroup tapped the Fed for almost $100 billion, the bank's CEO, Vikram Pandit, had the temerity to call Citi's first quarter the "best since 2007." Is there another word for fraud?

Finally, everyone knows the biggest banks are too big to fail -- and yet, despite this, Congress won't put a cap on the size of the banks. The assets of the four biggest -- J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo -- now equal 62 percent of total commercial bank assets. That's up from 54 percent five years ago. Throw in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and these six leviathans preside over the American economy like Roman emperors.

Speaking of Rome, if Italy or Greece defaults and Europe's major banks can't make payments on their debts to Wall Street, another bailout will surely be required. And the politics won't be pretty.

There you have it. A federal court will now weigh costs and benefits of a modest rule designed to limit speculative trading in food and energy.

But in coming months and years, the American public will weigh the social costs and social benefits of Wall Street itself. And it wouldn't surprise me if they decide the costs of the Street as it is far outweigh the benefits.

The result will be caps on the size of banks. Some will be broken up. Glass-Steagall will be resurrected. Some Wall Street bigwigs may even see in the insides of jails.

If so, the Street has only itself to blame."

Thanks again, Mr. Secretary, for your valuable "Reichsense!!"

Rhode Island leads the way!!

Here's the wonderful story of Carmen Castillo, as told by Amy Dean on truthout.org:


If labor and other progressive groups are going to rebuild an economy that works for the 99 percent in America, they need to do great organizing in workplaces and communities and they also need to build deep coalitions among themselves. But that’s not enough.

They also need to translate their organizing muscle into political power. And that means looking at electoral strategies in a new way.

The progressive victories in this November’s elections were inspiring and important, but they were essentially defensive. We fended off Republican attacks in Ohio, Mississippi and Maine, but we need to be winning pro-active campaigns, too. We need to be able to use electoral politics to reinforce our organizing strategies.

We often elect lesser-evil politicians and send them off in the vague hope that they will do the right thing once taking office. But we have seen time and time again, that even when we have friends in elected positions, they often end up holding the grassroots constituencies that got them elected at arm’s length. Politicians face huge pressures from corporate interests once in power and, consequently, just having a “D” after their name does not guarantee that they will take tough stands on behalf of working people. We don’t need friends in office; we need champions.

Fortunately, activists in Providence, Rhode Island – prominently including the hotel and restaurant workers union (UNITE HERE) – are providing a model for electing officials at the municipal level who will champion the interests of working people. These progressives are creating impressive coalitions, overcoming historic divides between the building trades and other unions and translating organizing strength into a political program that can produce real community benefits.

What’s more – in an exciting special election this Tuesday – they succeeded in electing one of their truest champions yet. Carmen Castillo, a hotel housekeeper and a rank-and-file union leader, brought to her campaign the life experience of an immigrant and a single mom, along with the vision of an organizer. She is drawing on the strength of an electoral coalition that has never looked more impressive.

It Takes an Agenda

Providence’s city council has long been heavily Democratic and all 15 council members currently in office are Democrats. In this setting, party affiliation is not the main issue. The importance of having true champions in office became clear when activists started thinking big – imagining an economic agenda that could be enacted at the municipal level and would truly benefit working people.

In the past decade, social movement thinkers have recognized that not all policies must be set at the federal level, where Congressional conservatives can easily stonewall progressive measures. By presenting an alternative vision for economic development at the level of states and metropolitan regions, grassroots movements can have an impact on critical issues of housing, transportation, environmental protection and living-wage standards.

UNITE HERE has been actively involved in Rhode Island politics for many years, but in 2010, the union aggressively expanded its volunteer operation to give workers a louder voice in local elections, especially in Providence. They connected their drive with established efforts by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) locals 1199 and 615, the Laborers, and a variety of community groups that had been working to build a core of strong progressives on the city council. In the 2010 elections, five council candidates endorsed by the union prevailed, making up a third of the body.

The point for the union was not just to get friends into office. It was to pass innovative policies that could help working people in the city in a concrete way. A key example of the types of policies they envisioned was a worker retention ordinance, which could help union members keep their jobs when businesses changed hands and reduce the temptation of subcontracting as a way to reduce decent-paying jobs. An initial version of the ordinance passed in 2009, an expanded version passed in 2010 and it has survived initial court challenges. As Chris Cook, a worker at the Westin Hotel in Providence and vice president of UNITE HERE Local 217 explains:

“If a new company comes in the hospitality industry in Providence and purchases an existing business with existing employees, the ordinance says that the new owners can’t terminate workers on the spot; they have to give them three months. This is huge. It gives workers a chance to get to know the new boss and maintain their jobs, or it gives them three months to find a new job so they aren’t just thrown out on the street.”

The ordinance has since been cited as a precedent in fights in other parts of the country. It is an example of social justice activists figuring out what decisions can be made at the local level that actually impact people’s lives – and then leveraging their organizing to produce political gains.

Carmen’s Story

UNITE HERE saw that political power at the municipal level could produce real benefits, not only for its members, but also for wider communities of working- and middle-class people. Consequently, the union has sought to further develop its political program by encouraging grassroots leaders within its organization to run for office. When council member Miguel C. Luna – a strong advocate of social justice causes – suddenly died in August, the union decided it needed a champion to replace him. The organization decided to back Carmen Castillo.

“I’ve known Carmen for 14 years and she’s been a true blue fighter for the union on the contract committee, shop steward, executive board member,” says Cook. “She can rally the troops at the drop of a dime. She’s hardcore. Of course we are excited to support her.”

Castillo will bring more than just her union experience to the Council. “She isn’t a one-sided candidate; she is also a huge part of her community. She knows what it is to pay her mortgage; she knows what it is to try and make ends meet and get the groceries on the table for her children, get them through college. She is concerned that we have clean streets to live in, good homes. As hard as she fights on worker issues; she is going to fight on issues of community.”

In a ward of largely Latinos and people of color, which have had problems with racial profiling and Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, Castillo’s Republican opponent, Christian Chirino, espoused Tea Party-like positions and advocated militarizing the border. In contrast, Castillo’s story embodies a powerful progressive vision of what our country can be – a vision that is pro-worker, pro-immigrant and pro-American.

“I came from the Dominican Republic almost nineteen years ago with my three little girls and I started working at the Westin Hotel in 1994,” Castillo says. “I came to this country for opportunities for my family. I was looking for a better life. I wanted the opportunity to work to support my family.”

Having a union job allowed her to do that. “I’m a room attendant,” she says. “I’m a single mother. I worked hard to bring my daughters through college. Now, I want to do something for my community to give back for what this country did for me. When my best friend Miguel Luna passed away, I decided to run.”

Tuesday’s victory is a testament to her perseverance. “Sometimes we’re so tired,” she noted during the campaign. “I am still working in the hotel, I didn’t quit my job. When you are working 40 hours a week and working 40 hours on the campaign, it’s too much. But I do it because I know that to win we need to work hard.”

A Coalition for Political Success

Ultimately, it wasn’t just one union that contributed to this formula for political success. Castillo’s campaign drew support from the Laborers, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Painters, SEIU and the Teachers Union, as well as from the city’s Central Labor Council.

The participation of the building trade unions was particularly important. Historically, there has often been a political divide between the building trades and service sector unions. However, in Providence, the modest size of the area has allowed coalitions to form and made close collaboration possible.

As Scott Duhamel, a representative at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and secretary treasurer of the Rhode Island Building Trades and Construction Council, explains: “Rhode Island is a small state, very much of a city-state. There is a lot of collaboration between public and private unions in this state, particularly in these dire times. We’re all linked pretty intricately right now in a number of struggles. It’s a no brainer.”

Asked about historic divisions, Duhamel cites a new generation of leadership as a key to building stronger coalitions. “There is some new leadership in the building trades and you can easily categorize them as much more progressive than their predecessors,” he says. “Since they assumed leadership there has been a big effort to make sure that different unions are aware of each others’ strategies. And it has been very successful.”

For Duhamel, supporting Castillo’s victory is a part of the building trades reclaiming a pro-immigrant history and overcoming divides with the community that have formed in past decades. “Our history, we are based on the immigrant experience,” he says. “The early building trades were manned and built by a lot of new immigrants to the United States. But we became a closed club; there’s no denying it. History shows it. In the ’60s and the ’70s, and the ’80s … we were thumbing our nose at the inner-city residents, who were once mostly African-American, but have now become Latino and Asian. But someone finally realized this was a big mistake. We haven’t connected where we should have been connecting, so around the country there are some groups that have made steps to change.”

In Providence, this push for change connected to the effort to elect champions in city council. As in some other cities, political power allowed building trade unions to pass Community Workforce Agreements, which not only mandate that major construction projects in the city hire union workers, but also that members of local communities – including inner-city communities – be hired. Apprenticeship programs facilitated by these agreements have allowed increasing numbers of people of color to enter the unions.

It is not uncommon for unions to circle the wagons when they are under attack – as they did in Wisconsin and Ohio. But what makes the Rhode Island case special and hopefully groundbreaking, is that labor’s unity is being used to win ground. What unity means is that each union does not cut its own deal with an employer or the political establishment, allowing piecemeal, short-term gains to divide the movement. Instead, different members of the coalition must look at the big picture and hold out for agreements that benefit the movement as a whole. It takes some risk and some faith to stand with an ally in demanding additional concessions once your needs have already been met. But it is powerful to see when it happens.

“Successes begets success,” says Duhamel. “All of the politicians, taxpayers, developers want to show that they give back to the community. When it’s done right, it’s success all around for everyone.”

The Road to Victory

With a broad coalition of unions and community groups signed on, Castillo’s campaign became a formidable force. At the municipal level, the limited scale of elections allows grassroots, door-to-door field campaigning to be a key factor in determining which candidates prevail. In the case of Castillo, it proved decisive. In a six-way primary for the Democratic nomination, all candidates vowed to be the friends of working people. But social movements were able to advance a champion who is looking to engage them as a partner in governing.

UNITE HERE’s Cook explains, “When Carmen ran in the primary, we had somewhere around 75 workers who put in around 190 three hour shifts of walking the streets, knocking on doors, talking to residents, making phone banking, passing out literature. In the end, we won by 29 votes.”

The very slim margin of victory made the importance of grassroots campaigning undisputable. “If we had won this by 200 or 300 votes,” says Cook, “maybe you could say she would have won anyway. But when it came down to a 29-vote victory, every person out on the doors mattered.”

On Tuesday, Castillo went on to win in the general election with close to 495 votes out of 650 votes. A representative of the 99 percent who is now taking office, she will be bringing her experience as a hotel housekeeper, as an immigrant and as a single mom to the city council. Cook takes a powerful lesson from the experience. “You can’t say it can’t be done,” he says. “I encourage people to step up, stand up and be counted and run. We certainly need more workers, more people who know what our struggle is to be elected. And it can be done.”

Congratulations to Carmen, and kudos to Providence for supporting her!!

Big business freaks over being asked to hang a free poster on the wall!!

This video is funny, but also a sad commentary on how out of whack the 1% is that they could whine about hanging up a free poster!!

http://youtu.be/1DzlOHrtw_4

Enjoy your Thursday my faithful Leftsiders!!