First Blood, Occupy Wall Street and the Future of Protest

Back in 1982, before jingoism and knee jerk patriotism swept both Hollywood and our cultural zeitgeist, a small movie was released starring Sylvester Stallone.  It was called "First Blood" and its protagonist, John Rambo, a disillusioned, down on his luck, unemployable Vietnam Veteran, runs afoul of a chief of police in small-town U.S.A. What the Chief does not find out until Rambo has escaped custody, led the chief and his posse into the mountains surrounding the town and then systematically disarmed and wounded them is that Rambo is a highly trained Green Beret - essentially unstoppable by a lightly trained police force unequipped to deal with a lethal killing machine.   Into this disaster in the making walks Rambo's former commanding officer, Col. Sam Trautman, who offers the chief a simple piece of advice - "defuse the situation ... defuse Rambo."  Trautman goes on to suggest that instead of instigating Rambo by bringing in the National Guard, helicopters and escalating the issue, the Chief should pull back, take down his dragnet and "allow" Rambo to escape.  Once done, a more low key search could be done, likely resulting in Rambo's arrest in the near future, but without any additional loss of life.   Naturally, the Chief ignores the advice, a mini-war takes place and much destruction ensues (although Rambo does ultimately turn himself in).

I was thinking about the idea of deescalation in relation to Occupy Wall Street.  The movement itself ignited when the New York Police Department escalated tension and got physical with protesters. Similar incidents have now occurred in other cities where Occupy protesters have congregated.  I would encourage the police and respective local governments where Occupy protests are taking place to take Col. Trautman's advice - defuse the situation with Occupy Wall Street - grant permits for them to stay in public places, allow peaceable assembly and marches, and never, ever break out the pepper spray.  

This strategy would not only be beneficial in allowing protesters to express their grievances, it would actually go a long way toward advancing their agenda and getting them out of public spaces and into the actual work of voter registration, mobilization and message formation that will be necessary to convert their protest into action at the ballot box.  Because the half-life of any story, from stories of worldwide importance like Bin Laden's assassination or the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster to national stories like the Giffords shooting and coverage of the flavor of the month in the GOP primary, is quite short, the reality of Occupy Wall Street is that at some point, probably not too long after the first frost, if not sooner, the mainstream media will move on to other news.  All the more reason for the police to defuse the situation - if they simply wait it out, with temperatures dropping outside and the oxygen of media coverage taken away, Occupy protests are likely to shrink in size and intensity.  

Transitioning the OWS movement from "occupy" to "mobilize" would be in its interest too.  The bumper sticker label already exists - "We are the 99%" - something that Democrats constantly fail at and Republicans seem to have a Ph.D in, but the key question is what is done with all of that energy and vigor. No protest movement has any value if it fails to effectuate social change and the only way to do that is at the ballot box in November 2012, because no amount of public uprising, marching or media coverage is going to pry loose meaningful reform while Republicans run the House of Representatives and can filibuster in the U.S. Senate.  

So how is this done?  First, an actual policy agenda needs to be articulated.  While OWS is "little d" democratic through its general assembly, some concrete positions need to be staked out around which supporters can not only rally but generate broader support in the population.  Being part of the 99 percent does no good if most of that 99 percent remains apathetic and indifferent to policy concerns that affect them or think that there is nothing they can do to change their situation.  OWS should advocate issues like mortgage write downs, modifications to bankruptcy law, student loan forgiveness, more aggressive securities fraud investigation, job training, unemployment insurance extensions and tax increases on the wealthy as part of a progressive agenda that candidates for office at both the federal and state level can get behind.  

Second, this agenda needs to be converted into action - lobbying of legislators and regulators who control the levers of power, pushing candidates for office to support an agenda that focuses on, as Al Gore said, the people and not the powerful, and direct action - voter registration, donating and volunteering with campaigns that support these policies and aggressively pushing clear message points that debunk false narratives.  One of the major achievements of the Republican Party in the modern era is getting people to vote against their economic interest.  They have achieved this through relentless messaging that has gone unchallenged for too long.  This messaging is reinforced through hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying that ensures the interests of the powerful are protected.  In order to combat this, OWS and its supporters need to adopt the same messaging tactics that are explicable to the majority of Americans who, when polled, support progressive policies (social safety net, affordable education, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc ..) but are not engaged in the process and/or are not part of the prevailing media narrative, which generally favors the loudest, though not always most popular, voices.  

Third, OWS needs to be prepared for the long war.  Even if progressive candidates for office prevail in 2012, President Obama is re-elected and the Democrats control Congress, one need only look to 2008 to see even in that scenario, corporations successfully ambushed Democrats at many turns to dilute, and in some cases, destroy, attempts at greater oversight, regulation and prosecution.  This is the trench warfare of modern politics that needs to be done if any change is going to come. Republicans understand that the more skirmishes you engage in, the more likely you are to get your agenda advanced.  One need only look at issues as varied as abortion restrictions and voter ID laws to see that Republicans go back to these issues again and again, not deterred when they experience setbacks or losses, until finally, they break through. These battles take place in state capitols and backwater agencies, in the halls of Congress and the Federal Register, they require constant attention and diligence, reinforcement and support.  It should also encourage progressives to *run* for office. The number of neophyte politicians elected in 2010 by the right made clear that radically changing the make up of the political system is possible with a highly mobilized core of support around a narrow set of issues.

Electing the right candidates not only amplifies the power of these ideas, it extends into other areas - judicial appointments and administrative agency appointments (who control rule making).  Seeding federal and state courts with judges has helped Republicans get corporations defined as "people" and essentially shut down the awarding of significant punitive damages in state courts throughout the country.  These are no small policy feats but it should also be remembered (although it's been some time) that it was our federal court system that confirmed concepts we now take for granted like "one person, one vote" and the destruction of Jim Crow laws. Republicans have long recognized the utility of the appointment process both in its implementation when they are in power and in blocking it when they are out of power.  It is no coincidence that President Obama has had the U.S. Senate approve the fewest number of federal judges in modern history.  

OWS has shined a light on social inequality and captured the media's attention.  The key to its long-term success will be in its ability to transform the energy and support it has garnered into direct action.  Simply protesting on the Upper West Side will not get it done.  Giving speeches in the public square will not get it done.  Appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann will not get it done.  What is needed is a commitment to a core set of issues that its supporters then zealously and tirelessly work to achieve not just in Campaign 2012, but each and every election that takes place in the future.  Get to work.

The 30 Second Solution to the Middle East Peace Process

Amid the current round of brinkmanship that passes for the Middle East Peace Process and the finger pointing back and forth, most informed observers will tell you that the broad parameters for an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians have been known by decision makers in each camp for many years but the political wherewithal to sell that plan has been lacking in (depending on who you ask), either or both groups.  The parameters, which include turning over as close to 100 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians (with exceptions for existing settlement blocs and attendant land swaps in Israel), a final status resolution over Jerusalem and its religious sites, a token right of return, demilitarization and an early warning system in the Jordan Valley are the broad strokes; however, this framework always struck me as unworkable and an effort to take some existing "facts on the ground" (e.g., settlement blocs) and wrap those facts around something that had historical context (i.e., creating "Palestine" in Gaza and the West Bank, the two areas Egypt and Jordan commandeered after the 1948 War, were lost to Israel in 1967, and are the subject of U.N. Resolutions 227 and 338) and was explicable to the general public.  In short, the two state solution with Palestine sandwiching Israel between either side of it undermines Israel's defense, encourages further bifurcation of Palestinian leadership between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and demands comity and cooperation on border issues between the two countries that is unrealistic at best and woefully naive at worst.  

Instead, I offer a solution that better secures Israel's borders, addresses Jerusalem, provides Palestine with geographic contiguity, places real demands on all Palestinians to work together and removes the fiction of "right of return" in exchange for reasonable financial compensation.  In doing so, my proposal will give each country the opportunity to build relations more organically and, when the day comes, to improve relations in a way that will increase the likelihood of long-term peace between the parties.   

LAND PARTITION

Any discussion of achieving peace between the Israelis and Palestinians must start from the premise that neither the partition plan put forward by the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 nor the U.N. resolutions passed in 1967 and 1973 holds any meaningful weight in 2011.  The 1947 UNSCOP plan did not suggest a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and an Israeli state in what is today modern-day Israel and there was (and is) no special connection for Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza aside from the fact that those territories were under the authority of the Jordanians and Egyptians from 1949 to 1967 but were conquered by Israel in the 1967 War. 

My plan radically differs from the mainstream idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.  Instead of creating a state on either side of Israel, which pinches the "belt" of Israel and leaves it subject to attack in the future, requires some safe passage corridor between the West Bank and Gaza (also a potential defense issue) and would allow for the continued splitting of authority, Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank,  I propose that Gaza be turned back over to the Israelis in full in exchange for a geographically contiguous Palestinian state in all of the West Bank (including settlement blocs) with its capital in what was once East Jerusalem.  I also propose that Jordan permit annexation of a small portion of its western border with this new Palestinian state to afford it a bit more size.  

The benefit of two distinct, clearly defined states are several.  First, for security purposes, having a single border between the two states makes far more sense than having two borders.  Expanding what is defined as Israel into the Gaza Strip provides strategic depth and eliminates the risk of rocket attacks from Gaza that have been launched for the past several years.  It also removes the need for Israel to create a transportation corridor through its country to facilitate the movement of Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank which itself could be a security risk in the future if the countries went to war.  Second, it places an affirmative obligation on all Palestinians to work together to create a country of their own.  The two-state, West Bank/Gaza proposal permits indefinite separation between Hamas, which runs Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank.  If true democratic, political institutions are desired in Palestine (as they should be), these two parties must be under one roof and figure out how to work together.  Third, it fully separates the parties.  While shifting people between the West Bank and Gaza, when some of that occurred just a few years ago, may seem impractical, the long-term benefit far outweighs whatever short-term dislocation may occur.  Indeed, for Israelis, re-settling Gaza may be desirable and for Palestinians, having full control over the West Bank as its country will give its citizens the stability and finality to further develop that land.  Finally, ceding East Jerusalem to Palestine and West Jerusalem to the Israelis will permit both to claim that city as its capital.  

THE RIGHT OF RETURN

In exchange for receiving the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem as its capital, Palestinians would be required to give up any claim to a right of return and acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.  The parties would negotiate a reasonable settlement that would provide some compensation to be directed into a fund administered by a third party (TBD by the parties) that would pay out claims or provide some form of remuneration only to those who could show they were displaced during the 1948 War but not to their descendants.  

JERUSALEM

As noted, I propose the splitting of Jerusalem into West and East Jerusalem.  With regard to the area around the Temple Mount and Western Wall, an international peace-keeping force made up of representatives from an agreed upon group of countries would be entrusted with allowing full access to all areas around the religious sites of each party.  

REMAINING ISSUES

Demilitarization of the newly formed Palestinian state would be required, though the need for any early warning system within Palestine would be obviated by the creation of a clearly defined border between the two parties.  In addition to the creation of a compensation fund for those displaced and waiving their right of return, I propose that existing structures created in the West Bank (i.e., homes, schools and other infrastructure) be turned over to the Palestinians in the same manner that existing infrastructure within the Gaza Strip be handed over to Israeli control.  This additional concession on the part of Israel would reflect a significant indirect investment in Palestine's economy by offering it the benefit of existing public works projects, residential housing and commercial real estate. As mentioned above, I recommend that Jordan provide some land along its western border to Palestine to provide additional space.  In doing so, Jordan would be expressing its commitment to true peace and stability for Palestine. Lastly, such an agreement must receive the support of the Arab League in the form of a commitment by its member nations to enter into peace agreements with Israel based on Israel's signing of a peace agreement with Palestine.  These agreements would include, among other things, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, full normalization of diplomatic relations and agreements to engage in commerce and export/import of Israeli goods into their countries. 

CONCLUSION

For too long, the parties, not to mention the so-called Quartet of world leaders working on this issue, have shown fealty to a peace process and solution that offers an unworkable long-term answer to this problem.  The enmity between Israelis and Palestinians simply does not support a two-state solution with a still-hostile Hamas on one side of Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the other.  Regardless of whether that solution, mine or any other is implemented, difficult decisions will need to be made by both sides.  The core needs of each party, for Israelis, a sense of finality in the peace process - with both Palestine and the broader Arab world - and security to guard against the risk of future conflict, are paramount; for Palestinians, the desire for a homeland sufficient for its people, a capital in Jerusalem and acknowledgment of the suffering they have experienced, must be met.  

While legitimate complaint with some of the particulars of my proposal are understandable, for example, Israelis would likely find it unpalatable to either abandon long-held settlements in the West Bank or turn over a portion of Jerusalem to Palestine, and Palestinians may wish to cling to the "right of return" or maintain the Gaza Strip as its own, my idea offers a path forward that puts each side to its rhetoric of being interested in peace in action and deed, not just in word.  Moreover, it avoids the tortured boundary creation, neighborhood delineation and safe corridor creation that will inevitably bog down any final status negotiation involving both the West Bank and Gaza comprising Palestine.  Finally, as a far more advanced society and financially competitive democracy, Israel is in a position to be both generous in its settlement and capable of turning its economic engine and creativity toward growing its country for generations to come. For Palestinians, a commitment to democracy and the rule of law will unquestionably bring forward the assistance and support of the world community in building their new state. 

Were the terms I suggest agreed to, they would be reduced to a binding and final peace treaty between the parties.  Further support in the form of approval by the Arab League of this agreement as a launching point for its member nations entering into formal peace agreements with Israel would achieve, after more than 60 years of fighting, the elusive peace we all desire.

The King of All Media in Winter

It is no coincidence that Howard Stern uses the carnival barker motif for his pay channel "Howard TV."  Stern is, in his way, a descendent of P.T. Barnum, drawing people into his world with a motley assortment of misfits, porn stars and celebrities who casually bare their id and humanity on his show.  Stern and Barnum also share the trait of offering more than is necessarily delivered.  This was no more true than when Stern moved to Sirius Satellite Radio in 2006.  While endlessly drumming up support among his fans in the waning days of his terrestrial radio show, Stern glided past, or mentioned only in passing, that his show would change once it began airing on satellite radio.  Since starting with Sirius, the Howard Stern Show, and its associated channels, "Howard 100" and "Howard 101," have steadily offered fans less and less live programming while shrinking creatively from its promising beginning.  

The satellite show Howard started in January 2006 began with great fanfare and anticipation.  Not only was Howard doing a clever, bawdy and downright hilarious show 5 days a week, a "Howard 100 News" team acted as a show force multiplier for all information about the show and its cast of characters.  Two other original programs, Bubba the Love Sponge and Scott Ferrall, were added and random hour long specials popped up to expand the show's universe.  Sirius received great coverage and a large spike in subscribers in the months leading up to Howard's arrival.  Soon thereafter though, once the carnival barker had the customers (and their $12 dollars a month) in the tent, things changed.  The news team was trimmed in half, the 5 day a week show quickly shifted to 4 days (Stern never fully accounted for this, usually claiming that he told listeners his hours would "change" on satellite and that even so, with fewer commercials, the show was actually longer than his terrestrial show.  Even the commercial break claim started to slip as musical and/or show bit bumpers added to the show breaks), Bubba's exclusivity ended when Sirius would not renew his contract after 2 years and additional programming was scaled back or disappeared completely.

Even with these changes, longtime listeners could see that Stern was enjoying a creative renaissance on satellite radio.  While the language of the show became more colorful, more importantly, being freed from the confines of blocked commercials allowed Stern to delve far more deeply into interviews and show bits when needed. Moreover, the show received a substantial contribution from so-called sidekick Artie Lange.  While Lange's comedy was often stunted within the more regulated airwaves of terrestrial radio, on satellite, Artie's genius truly shined.  Lange's natural abilities as a storyteller and a comedic foil for Stern, particularly during the news segment that closes the show, were evident and added greatly to the overall quality of the show. Lange's personal life also became a deep vein of show material and, at times, crossed a line of "reality" and reality, as when Lange stormed off the show in a rage after arguing with his assistant, engaged in a nearly hour-long on-air argument with Stern about whether the two men were actually friends and feuded with cast members Sal Governale and Richard Christy.  That Lange was also spiraling downward in heroin addiction, nodding off during the show, randomly missing work days and behaving in an erratic way was either lost on Stern or not taken seriously on air. (Stern's comments about Lange since his departure from the show have been limited and essentially excused Stern's ignorance of Lange's condition).

While fans generally accepted the shorter schedule and additional days off, callers who complained about these changes were told variously that there was other programming on Sirius and/or if they did not like it, to cancel their subscriptions. This was a far different message than Stern was conveying when he was attempting to promote Sirius prior to and immediately after his arrival.  The "revolution" he promised was, like Barnum's bearded ladies and siamese twins, less than met the eye. Moreover, Stern's impact on Sirius's subscription base is open to interpretation.  When Stern sued SiriusXM for failing to pay him performance bonuses he claimed he was entitled to, subscription information for the period of time both before and after Stern moved to Sirius showed that while there was a clear bump of more than 2 million subscribers in the window of time between when Howard announced his move, started his show on Sirius and the year after, that spike did not last.  In other words, the subscribers Howard moved over to Sirius came on board either in the months prior to, or after, his arrival.

Sirius's 2007 merger with lone competitor XM Radio was heralded by Stern as a validation of his own impact on the business and there was likely some truth in that statement; however, even then, the level of interest in the Stern Show specifically was likely overstated.  After the merger, XM subscribers who were interested in a "best of" Sirius package that included Stern had to pay an additional $4 a month for that programming.  Papers filed in the case Stern brought against SiriusXM show that roughly 1 million subscribers, or about 9 percent of the total subscribers XM had when the acquisition took place, purchased the best of package.  While being directly responsible for at least 3 million subscribers is an impressive feat, the idea that Stern's audience is still what it was in his terrestrial days is highly unlikely.  The entire case file in Stern's lawsuit is worth reading and can be found, for free, through the New York Supreme Court's website at: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=650762-2011.

As Stern's contract with Sirius drew to a close, there was a legitimate question as to whether Howard would re-sign with the company.  Now in his mid-50s and re-married, Stern appeared to achieve a certain balance and stability in his life that made walking away from radio more compelling and his career had not only been highly successful but incredibly lucrative.  Lange's departure in late 2009 and the show's notoriously insular world suggested bringing in new talent was unlikely and Stern's antagonism toward SiriusXM's management due to his view that bonuses he believed he was entitled to were not being paid only added to the uncertainty.

Like any good showman, Stern stretched out the drama until the very end, announcing his re-signing during his final week of live broadcasts in 2010.  Terms, as with all of Stern's contracts, were not disclosed by him except for a cryptic reference to working a "limited schedule."  Die-hard fans knew that the term "limited schedule" almost certainly meant more vacation time and the possibility of fewer shows, perhaps just over the summer, but instead of coming clean with his audience (as the terms of the contract had to define the number of shows and/or frequency required), Stern opted to remain noncommittal about the situation.

The truncated schedule Stern agreed to would soon be revealed to his audience.  The 4 day a week schedule quickly morphed into a "hybrid" schedule where the show was live 4 days one week, 3 the next, along with additional vacation time.  By the end of the summer of the first year of this new 5 year contract, the show was down to 3 days a week all the time, which appears to be the new norm, even though Stern himself has not mentioned it. The show itself is schizophrenic.  On the one hand, Stern relies more and more on recycled show bits and stories that even casual fans have long grown tired of to fill large blocks of time.  Regular callers to the program do little more than blow kisses at Stern, whose separation from the common man is in sharpest relief when he re-tells stories of parties with the likes of Conrad Black and his long weekends in the Hamptons.  Those short commercial breaks Stern promised are now larded with up to 5 additional minutes of song bumpers and bits that reduce the live show even further.  Most staff arguments feel canned and staged and Stern himself often seems uninterested in pushing the show creatively and, all too often, seems to be going through the motions to get to the end of that day's telecast.

On the other hand, the one area of the show where Stern has arguably never been better is in his interview segments.  In the past few months alone, Stern has produced amazing radio with A-list celebrities like Lady Gaga, Simon Cowell, and Billy Joel, drawn out controversial statements from Tony Bennett about 9/11, and shown his true skill in talking to lesser celebrities like Dave Navarro, Tom Sizemore and Tatum O'Neal and making them come to life through open, honest and sometimes painful conversations about drugs addiction, divorce, family alienation and other deeply personal and painful subjects rarely covered in traditional interview segments.

A prime example of Stern's genius was his interview with Lady Gaga, who, over the course of a more than one hour interview opened herself up about everything from her sexuality and sex life to her fears and insecurities about the music business, her tireless devotion to her craft (and fans) and love of performing.  The showstopper though was Gaga's story of the impetus behind her song "Edge of Glory," which, she told Stern, was written shortly after the death of her grandfather and with the assistance of her father.  The stripped down version of the song she performed on piano in studio was one of the finest moments in Stern Show history and testament to Howard's continued powers as a broadcaster.

That power, or more specifically, Stern's unwillingness to wield it except in limited circumstances, is what makes the current state of the show and the artist that much more perplexing.  For every morning where it sounds like Howard could not care less about being at work, there will be an interview segment that shows a performer at the height of his power.  It is unclear how much Stern's lawsuit against SiriusXM is affecting his work, but his ambivalence about re-signing seems to have bled into his work.  Interviews aside, the show lacks much vigor.  Lange was never replaced and his absence is felt not only creatively but in the lack of a strong foil for Stern's observations and antics.  Long-time true sidekick Robin Quivers serves as both validator of Stern's opinions and equally removed now-celebrity who treats the show as Stern appears to, as a part-time gig between vacations in places that are out of reach of the average listener and with a modest amount of interest in the actual product being put on air.

Sadly, the show's quality is unlikely to improve.  Stern has shown no inclination to fill Lange's empty chair and even if he were, it is unclear whether a quality replacement could be found in light of the uncertainty that surrounds Stern's future after this contract and the question of whether SiriusXM is interested in investing additional money in a performer who is now suing them for what we can only assume is a substantial amount of money (the parties stipulated as part of the litigation that financial details would be redacted from all court filings).  Moreover, as his contract nears its end, Stern is likely to lose staffers who actually contribute on air material as they move on to new opportunities.  On some level, the fitting end may be the coda to a clever short movie done as part of the Howard Stern Film Festival back in 2006 (another ambitious undertaking that seems light years ago).  In "Radio Play," childhood versions of Howard, Robin and Fred find each other through radio and create a show.  In real life, it is entirely possible that the near retirement-age versions will do the same and ride off into the radio sunset.   

Follow me on Twitter @scarylawyerguy