2.02.2012

Tent City University: "Anyone can teach, everyone can learn"

"If you're under the impulse to find greater support for what you're doing, you listen more closely and you question more vigorously."
"If you want to take it to a more mystical, spiritual level they're dreaming another world awake. That's the way some of them see it."
I love this idea, because having experienced "education" in public school systems and state universities here in America, I recognize the need for a more informal venue, a "learning community" that adjusts to the needs and demands of students in a way that simply cannot happen within the structure of the traditional system.

Additionally, while I owe a large part of my current success in the world to my "formal" education and the credentials it brings with it, the truth of the matter is that the knowledge I bring to the table most often is the knowledge of lived experience, and none of that came from a formal classroom, to be sure.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this "school" is the potential for a cross pollination and transference of seemingly unrelated topics; the pygmy hunter-gatherers discussion is a prime example.

This concept brings to mind the meetings we have at The Contributor around vendor issues and potential writing topics.  The move from "meeting" to knowledge transference seems pretty straightforward with just a couple of easy tweaks to a format like this.

Here's hoping that even if Occupy London's current "classrooms" are evacuated due to circumstances beyond their control, they regroup quickly and find new digs.  The idea is such a good one that I'd love to see similar "colleges" spring up in every city in America. 

Tent City University – one of the most remarkable aspects of Occupy London

The facilities are basic, but the guest lecturers are impressive and the students are engaged and ferociously well informed
Occupy London Bank of Ideas
The Bank of Ideas – the Occupy London educational establishment in a disused office block in the City of London. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian
When, as now seems likely, the Occupy London protesters are forced to pack up their tents outside St Paul's Cathedral the capital will be losing more than one of its newer and less likely tourist attractions.

Also facing eviction, following this week's high court decision, is the camp's innovative and vigorous educational arm which, according to academics who have spoken there, can often be a more intellectually stimulating environment than the universities that provide their day jobs.

Within a few days of the main camp setting up by St Paul's Cathedral in October, the grandly named Tent City University – in reality a draughty marquee a few metres from a busy road with few amenities beyond a ramshackle sound system and a sprinkling of elderly sofas – set up for business, offering lectures not just to activists but to anyone who happened to be passing by.

Since then a host of leading university academics have offered talks on subjects as varied as international banking, philosophy, theology, the Arab spring and central Africa's (very egalitarian) pygmy hunter-gatherers.

The activists later expanded their educational operation, taking over another site, a disused office block near Liverpool Street station in the City of London financial district. This was transformed into the even more grandly titled Bank of Ideas, which faces separate eviction proceedings from UBS bank, which owns the site.

All camp members can book speakers at either venue by adding them to a communal web-based calendar, said James Sevitt from Occupy.

"The Tent City University, by virtue of its location, gets a lot of people coming past – tourists are there, and people from the City," he said. "For some people it's almost become a part of their daily routine."

Giving a lecture at the Tent City University was an eye-opener for Richard Werner, who has a day job at Southampton University.

The professor of international banking said: "It's different in the sense that the questions were much more informed than those I get from my students. That was a bit of a surprise. Clearly, these are people who have read into things and already have some recognition of some of the problems, and they have thought about potential solutions. So there were much more details questions, more engaged questions."
Those attending talks are "not without self-interest", said Ted Honderich, emeritus professor of mind and logic at University College London (UCL).

"But that is the condition of the human race. It makes them much more interested than certain university lecture audiences. If you're under the impulse to find greater support for what you're doing, you listen more closely and you question more vigorously.

"There's a lot of places you can lecture but there are few that are more comfortable than that tent, in the sense that it's comfortable to be lecturing to people who have a proper sense of moral dignity. You can't say that of a general introduction to philosophy lecture at 10am in University College."

The marquee is a far from ideal lecture theatre, said Tim Gorringe, professor of theology at Exeter University. "It's noisy. I spoke on a windy day – the tent flapped like hell," he said. "The noise of traffic is unremitting. St Paul's bells sound in your ear.

"I had a microphone but the battery packed up a third of the way through and it took another third to replace it. Obviously there's no classroom discipline. People drift in and out. You're not clear who you're talking to.

"But people are asking fundamental questions which they may not be asking at the universities.

"At my session there was a good range of questioners, people from both southern and eastern Europe as well as Brits, and a wider class range than one encounters in universities."

One of the more apparently unusual lecturers was Jerome Lewis, a social anthropologist at UCL, whose expertise is pygmy hunter-gatherers.

According to Lewis, the connection, is that these societies are perhaps the most egalitarian on Earth, with no gender or age hierarchies and a central tenet called "demand sharing" in which it is assumed people will not keep resources for themselves, something mirrored at the camp.

"They've developed their own version of demand sharing, in effect," he said. "If you want to take it to a more mystical, spiritual level they're dreaming another world awake. That's the way some of them see it.

"Physically it's quite challenging to speak there. It's cold, noisy, you've got to keep a good volume going for 45 minutes. But what is nice is the range of different people in the audience, which made for some interesting questions."

The fascination went both ways, Lewis added, for someone of his discipline.

"They're trying to live very differently. There's one man there who has deliberately limited himself to owning just 32 possessions – and that includes his underpants."

In the University of Ideas, a talk had begun inside one of its classrooms, a vast, chilly office space made as comfortable as possible despite a stained blue carpet and a shopping trolley full of placards in a corner. A newly arrived group of Occupy supporters from Finland, identifiable by their suspiciously pressed-looking clothes, were listening to a man from the New Democracy Foundation thinktank expound on modern protest.

The audience members – arranged in a circle rather than facing him in rows – made their own points.

"It's very interesting, this idea that there's not just one way – a single conduit for information and then you maybe get to ask a few questions," said one of the Finns, Erkki Perälä. "You could call it a more multi-dimensional way of learning, and I think you get a lot more from it."

What's on the syllabus

With a motto of "Anyone can teach, everyone can learn", the Tent City University has a broad curriculum, if understandably biased towards the concerns of protesters against the global finance system. Recent lectures have included:
• The fashion designer Vivienne Westwood on the links between ecological and economic crisis.
• Understanding the Arab uprisings from above and below, by an academic from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies.
• Revolution and creativity in the artist William Blake, by author and the poet Jeremy Reed.
• The case against usury (accompanied by ukelele), by Tom Hodgkinson, editor of the Idler.
• How to find social meaning in your dreams, by experts from the Tavistock Institute, a leading centre for psychoanalysis.
• How to start your own credit union.
• Lessons from a football tour of Egypt, Palestine and Jordan.
• Workshops on knitting and clowning.

2.01.2012

Contractor Mary Forristall: "When was America all about everyone being equal?”

Clearly, some folks have failed to understand what makes America the greatest place on earth, even with the passel of problems we face as a country today.

Come to think of it, it may very well be that ignorance like this is exactly why we have the problems in this country in the first place...



The Great Debate: America and Equality

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." - Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1776
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 19, 1863
"When was America all about everyone being equal?” - Florida contractor and Gingrich fundraiser Mary Forristall, quoted in the Washington Post on Jan. 28, 2012
There you have it: America's great political debate summarized in three quotes. Forristall is not the first conservative, and definitely won't be the last, to dislike equality. Our history is littered with a surprising number of quotes just like it. Most of us think the ideas of Jefferson and Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. firmly planted equality in American soil and made it as apple-pie all-American as you could imagine, but the debate goes on. From Alexander Hamilton to John C. Calhoun to the Social Darwinists of the 1880s to Ayn Rand, William Buckley, and Jesse Helms of the last century and the tea partiers of this, there has been a long line of conservatives who are appalled and terrified by the idea of equality. There are a lot of remarkably blunt quotes on how absurd the idea of equality is from all kinds of conservatives which I featured in my book, "The Progressive Revolution: How the Best of America Came To Be."
When conservatives want to be a little less overt about their disdain for the notion of equality, they will say that, of course they believe in equality of opportunity, they just oppose equality of results. Besides being a ridiculous straw man (no one I have ever met has argued for absolute "equality of results,” or the idea that it isn't fine for people to get rewarded when they build and sell great products), they almost always immediately undercut their own argument by proposing cuts in student grants and loans, public education, Head Start and child health programs that get kids off to a better start in life. They are all for equality, they say, but never want to extend equal protections under the law to new classes of people being discriminated against. They support equality but don’t care if people with illnesses or pre-existing conditions can’t get health care coverage. They are for equal rights under the law but support eliminating funding for legal services, and allowing bankers who commit financial fraud to skate by without ever being investigated. They think equality is wonderful, but are indignant that progressives ask that millionaires and billionaires pay at least as high a tax rate as their secretaries.
Conservatives are on the defensive on equality issues to a degree they haven’t been in at least four decades, and they are flailing around pretty badly trying to defend their patrons in the 1 percent. More straw men are being created than in the Land of Oz. The Washington Post has had two big pieces in their editorial pages the last two days with conservative writers desperately trying to defend wealthy people from having to pay a fair share of taxes.
First up, with the lead editorial on the front page of The Washington Post Sunday Outlook section, was a piece by James Q. Wilson with the monster-sized headline “Don’t Blame the Rich.” The Post’s sub-headline was “Scholar James Q. Wilson argues that taxing the wealthy won’t end poverty.” Straw man number one: I’d be hard pressed to ascertain what progressives were blaming “the rich” for. I, appropriately, blame a lot of the big Wall Street bankers for crashing the economy through financial fraud, forcing the rest of us to bail them out, and then whining because we don’t love them anymore. Likewise, I blame oil and coal companies for polluting the air and threatening the earth with catastrophic climate change. I blame health insurance companies for dropping millions of people out of coverage when they get sick. I blame big business execs who outsource jobs from America so they can pay slave wages in China and Third World countries. But I have nothing against rich people generally.
If you are a manufacturer who has created a great product and employs a lot of people to make it while paying them a decent wage and making sure they have health benefits, and gets rich as a result, I have nothing but love for you. If you are a small business owner that provides amazing service for your community and gets rich as a result, that is tremendous. If you are a community banker who gives small business and home and auto loans to the people in your community, and make great money, God bless you. If you run a website that produces great content with a huge audience, and you reap the rewards, wonderful. I blame entrepreneurs like that for nothing, and am thrilled for their success. But I still want to see them, and everyone with the ability to, pay their fair share of taxes.
Straw man number two: I have never heard anyone say that taxing the wealthy, all by itself, would end poverty. There are many different ways we can attack the poverty problem, and a lot of them do require money, some of it private and some of it public, but poverty is not going to end overnight or be solved by any one policy measure. But what could taxing the wealthy more do? Help reduce the federal deficit, pay for more schools, repair the schools we have in so many places that are falling apart, hire more and better teachers. It could rebuild our roads, highways, sewer systems, bridges, and the rest of our crumbling infrastructure. It could make sure the entire nation has access to high speed broadband internet service, pay for more research and development, invest in more prenatal care, early childhood programs, Head Start, and quality child care. There are many other needs this country has, and taxing the wealthy at a fairer rate would definitely help us pay for all those things. But you know what else? It is also a matter of simple fairness and justice: People with wealth got wealthy in part because of the blessings of this country, and they ought to pay their fair share to support it.
Straw man number three: Progressives want to tax the rich only to help the poor. Now I will admit something here: Being the lefty freak that I am, I do actually care about helping poor people. Although I don’t believe all the theological teachings of my childhood, I do still believe that the Jesus of the Gospels was right when he said we would ultimately be judged on how we treated “the least of these,” and in general those with less than us. And I think it is also just good public policy: When you help lift poor people up, give them opportunities for a better life, you make our country stronger as a whole. But the conservatives’ goal in saying the only point of taxing the rich is to help the poor is to divide poor people from the middle class. The fact is that while the safety net for the poorest among us is tattered and in need of repair, there is very little safety net at all for the middle class. It is the middle class that built this country, and when the gap between us and the wealthiest keeps growing exponentially, the middle class gets crushed. Poor people are in trouble in this country but the middle class is as hard-pressed as it has been since the 1930s.Their wages are stagnant, their homes have crashed in value, and they have groceries, energy, health care, and college tuition costs rising. Their kids’ schools have been falling apart and seeing teacher layoffs, fire and police services keep getting pared back, roads have big potholes that never seem to get fixed and bridges are in danger of collapse because the wealthiest in society aren’t paying their fair share in taxes. This issue of fundamental fairness and vast economic inequality is not just about helping the poor; it really is about helping the entire 99 percent.
Wilson’s opinion piece ignores a wide range of recent research showing social mobility slowing down dramatically in America and being far worse than most industrialized countries, and he is remarkably selective about the data he does use—using statistics more than once that mysteriously only go up to 2006, before the collapse of the last few years, and ignoring data from more recent years that shows how income inequality has gone up in most Western countries, but by far the most here. He makes a special point, of course, in noting that inequality has gone down in Greece, while never mentioning how much stronger than ours the economies have been of several European countries (including Germany, Denmark, and Sweden) who have far better income inequality numbers.
Then there is Robert Samuelson’s piece. He adds a fourth straw man to Wilson’s big three: that passing the Buffett Tax wouldn’t solve the deficit problem. Well, no, Mr. Samuelson, but it would help. No one who supports the Buffett tax has argued that if we just passed that and did nothing else, all our federal deficit problems (or the deficit in public investment for education, infrastructure, and all the rest for that matter) would magically go away. To solve all those problems, you would also need to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, close all the unproductive corporate tax loopholes, end the deduction for million dollar-plus homes, stop subsidizing oil companies and big corporate agribusiness, impose a tax on Wall Street speculation, cut wasteful defense spending, create a robust public option in health care, negotiate with drug companies on Medicare Part D, and reform federal contracting policy. Oh, and start creating economic growth and new jobs at the rate Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. You do all that stuff and the deficit gets solved pretty easily, but I’m guessing a hard-line conservative like Samuelson would oppose almost all of those policies.
Samuelson concludes his article by saying this: “But recognize that the anti-wealthy populist rhetoric is mostly political expediency. It distracts from the serious issues the country faces—creating jobs and closing long term budget deficits. The anti-rich backlash is growing; a Pew poll finds 66 percent of Americans see strong conflicts between rich and poor, up from 47 percent in 2009. Pandering to this is easier than dealing with the future.” Not seeing that the richest 400 families in America have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans is a “serious issue” and one of the most tragic flaws of conservatism. This kind of imbalance creates a country that looks far more like the Third World than like America in her mid-20th Century glory years. And you will never create big numbers of jobs or curb long-term deficits without a prosperous and expanding middle class. To suggest that those of us who care about issues of economic equity are pandering, or—another one of my all-time favorite straw men—are envious of the rich—suggests a fundamental lack of understanding about either good economic policy or our nation’s history. I’m not envious of the rich; I’d just like the rest of us not to be crushed by their greed.
The truth that we are all created equal is indeed self-evident. America was in fact conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are created equal. And if a certain small sector of our economy grows so much richer and more powerful than the rest of us, it strikes at the heart of the America we used to be, and are supposed to be.

Why Can't Nashville Establish Affordable Housing Opportunities Like This?

Anytime I see a story about someone or some organization who has been able to raise enough private money to establish a housing complex for the chronically homeless, replete with wraparound case management services, I am struck by the lack of Nashville's ability to do the same.

In fact, I find it heartbreaking that in a city priding itself on the belief that we come together in times of trouble cannot come together enough to help establish affordable housing for the hundreds of individuals living on our streets, in our woods, and even in our doghouses.

It's certainly not from a lack of available potential donors or folks who care enough to pitch in to help. We are a city filled with people who understand that some are less fortunate than others, and that but for the Grace of God, there go I.  I've never met so many people willing to jump in and help others overcome the very worst the world throws at them.  

Interestingly, we are a city built upon the vagaries of music, with artists, established and aspiring, who can speak to the incredible impediments facing those living in hard times.  Some of them have spent time themselves struggling on the streets here, and were lucky enough to be able to parlay their love of music into success. Many however continue to struggle just to get by.  Surely there are musicians and performers who would come together to help, fund, support, encourage, advocate and construct housing for our city's most vulnerable and disenfranchised.

This is also a city that knows a thing or two about fighting for equality, recognition of basic human rights, and the dignity of an individual, regardless of where they came from, the color of their skin, or the current condition of their life.  It's hard for me to believe that these folks are simply wringing their hands or have their heads stuck in the sand as they watch people experiencing homelessness be relegated to "unimportant" status.

The People of Nashville are honest, hardworking and compassionate to a fault.  Their faith is unshakable, their determination to overcome challenges that would send lesser men and women screaming into the night unquestionable.  They will fight for as long as it takes, if that is what it takes.

They are friendly, willing to endure hardship for the betterment of their community as a whole, and fiercely dedicated to ensuring that everyone in the community gets a fair shake.  In no other place I've lived have I ever had so many friends who will drop whatever they are doing at a moment's notice to come help me, or anyone else, for that matter, with little regard for how this will impact their own daily schedules or existence.   


So why can't we seem to get our act together enough to create some affordable housing in order to end homelessness in our city?  

We even have the political will, which is usually a key barrier in many of these kinds of situations. While we need to understand that government cannot and should not have to do it alone, the Key Alliance is there to help access that political will and ready to go to work for anyone who can step forward to help them get started with a housing project.  We've got nationally known and recognized experts in the areas of homelessness and poverty standing by to lend their input, leadership and vision.  We're even connected to other national experts by association with individuals who live in Nashville and work with the folks around the country on a daily basis.  

The faith-based community, long the primary reason many persons experiencing homelessness in Nashville haven't died of starvation and exposure long ago, are poised and able to pitch in biblical levels of support around ending homelessness.  What they do individually on a daily basis for those experiencing homelessness is nothing short of miraculous.  Imagine what could be accomplished if we could collectively focus all those resources, dedication and commitment to one united effort to help end homelessness by providing affordable housing and supportive services!

We've got literally dozens of housing models to pick through as well, from John Parvensky's incredible Denver-based spectacular 90+ unit complex that rents its first floor out to local businesses to help defray mortgage costs (and those businesses hire people to work directly from the complex itself.  One, Pizza Fusion, actually trains folks to return to work),  to Bill Hobson's Seattle DESC Housing First Projects, to Becky Kanis' 100,000 Homes Campaign, to the Los Angeles Project 50 Skid Row effort, and these are just the tip of the housing iceberg.

I simply do not understand the inability for Nashville to come together to accomplish this something like providing housing to its poorest community members.

Frankly, it is antithetical to what I know and love about Nashville.

We are Nashville, and we can do this. There are lives depending on us to make it happen and I cannot, will not, accept that we have failed.

I don't think Nashvillians will accept failure on this issue, either. 

Facility creates 'ordinary' for the homeless

More Information


More than a year ago, William Pumphrey was part of a choir that celebrated the start of construction on an apartment building to serve the chronically homeless.
He didn't realize then that he was looking at his future home.
Early last week, Pumphrey learned he had earned a spot at the Moore Place apartments. Then he saw the second-floor apartment he'll move into early next month.
The news, the 53-year-old said, brought him to his knees.
On Sunday, Pumphrey and the Voices of Love choir were among hundreds of people marking the grand opening of Moore Place, an apartment building for 85 people off North Graham Street.
The $10 million facility was funded primarily with privately raised funds, including gifts from corporate and philanthropic foundations, the Charlotte Housing Authority, more than 50 local congregations and the John and Pat Moore family. The effort was led by Charlotte's Urban Ministry Center. The first eight residents will move in this week, and officials expect the complex to be full by the end of April.
Plans already are under way to add 35 more apartment units on the property, said Caroline Chambre, director of Urban Ministry Center's HousingWorks program.
In recent years, the Urban Ministry has piloted another housing program that offers people who have been homeless a permanent place to stay in sites scattered across Charlotte.
But Moore Place is considered a bigger shift in how the city has addressed the issue of people who are chronically homeless.
Residents will pay 30 percent of their income toward rent. The apartment facility will have on-site case management and 24-hour security.
Moore Place also will offer residents services such as job training, instruction on how to manage their money and counseling. A full-time nurse and part-time physician also will offer health care at the site.
Chambre said the goal is to help residents "go from a life of chaos to a life of normalcy." She described the effort as not being extraordinary; rather, a way to "create the ordinary" in residents' lives.
Pumphrey, who has been homeless on and off for the past 12 years, said Sunday he's not sure he'll ever be able to overcome all of the issues he's faced in recent years.
But he thinks the services provided by Moore Place will be immensely important for him and others.
"I feel taken care of, and I haven't even moved in yet," he said.
Charlotte has an estimated 6,500 people who are homeless. About 10 percent are considered chronic cases, meaning mental illness or addiction prevents them from finding housing through traditional programs such as shelters.
Advocates have said providing housing and other services for the homeless can save millions because it could cut down on those individuals going to "de-facto shelters" in jails or emergency rooms.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg leaders approved a "10-year Plan to End Homelessness" six years ago to create more permanent housing such as Moore Place.
Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx on Sunday praised efforts to complete Moore Place, noting challenges such as a fight over where to put the apartments. But he said even more housing facilities are needed.
He urged attendees at the grand opening event to pay attention to upcoming discussions among the City Council about housing bonds and a locational policy on where to put affordable housing.
Foxx said the community needs to find a way to create additional housing.
"We don't just need Moore Place," he said. "We need more places."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/30/2970430/facility-creates-ordinary-for.html#storylink=cpy

Smiling does a body good

Democracy Now Livestream