Former U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Jayel Aheram served in Iraq and Southeast Asia to protect the freedoms of Americans.
Aheram, who was honorably discharged in early 2010, was on Nov. 1 during a police crackdown at a week-long encampment at Palm Desert's Civic Center Park as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The 27 year old, who also goes by the name Jack Lee Noftsger, told Patch in a jailhouse interview on Wednesday that he believes there is something wrong with a system that punishes him for exercising his first amendment rights.
"I've been abroad to defend freedom and liberty in foreign countires. When I'm here exercising that freedom and liberty, I'm arrested, shackled and chained and treated like a common criminal," Aheram said, wearing an orange jump suit.
The College of the Desert student was sleeping at the park's western entrance off San Pablo Avenue when two dozen officers emerged from the darkness and arrested nine protesters who were in the park after its 11 p.m. curfew.
The city of Palm Desert had issued the group a permit for four nights to stay in the park, but refused to grant anymore after Friday. The protesters remained in the park all weekend in violation of the curfew and the city's camping ordinance.
"They ambushed us. It was a raid. It was a late night raid," Aheram said.
He said that he does not blame police for their actions, but holds the city of Palm Desert responsible for putting a city ordinance above the first amendment rights of the Occupy Coachella Valley movement.
"The city's attempt to quash this movement has made this movement stronger," Aheram said, adding that he plans to still be involved in protests after he is released.
He said he was not released like the nine others arrested since Tuesday because he refused to sign a citation from the sheriff's department, which contracts with Palm Desert for its policing services.
"I'm merely exercising my first amendment right. The city put a responsible citizen in jail for exercising his first amendment right," said Aheram, who was released from custody later in the day Wednesday.
The Riverside County District Attorney's Office has not received the case from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for review, according to D.A. spokesman John Hall.
Assistant City Attorney Robert Hargreaves has said the city supports the group's First Amendment rights, but cannot allow the park to be used as a campground for an extended period of time. The protesters are allowed to use the park from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily like the rest of the public, Hargreaves said.
I have always had a somewhat different take on the apathy of voters.It seemed to me (and I may well be wrong) that indifference at the polls demonstrated a certain contentment with existing arrangements, and that people in the streets and turning out in large numbers at an election could well be a sign of extreme discontent. In the deepest recesses of my being I am truly worried where a landless, jobless, hopeless, penniless populace might go. Oakland may be a one off event - or it may be a portent. Time will tell. I too believe that there are still many American Patriots,but I believe that they call themselves libertarians, conservatives, liberals, progressives or some variation thereof - no one side has a monopoly on morals, values or the desire to advance in life on the basis of a job well done. I, along with you hope we can do it through mutually supportive effort.
I think that's why Obama had so many first-time voters. He promised so much. And that's why so many are discontent. It's more of the same. I figured as much before the election, which is why I didn't vote for a presidential candidate. Nothing changes when you have to maintain the status quo. You have to change the society for the politics to change.
Thus, I would advance the looney idea that we might cooperate on addressing the issue. I probably misunderstood the import of your statement that the Tea Party never had a sit in. Unless my memory betrays me, I believe the original Tea Party could be characterized as a "throw in." Also, I do not believe that you mean to tell me that if something wasn't done before,i.e., sit in -- it can never be done. Of course, it is contrary to fact that the Tea Party actions were those of a few people. I remember Glenn Beck in Washington D.C. - did you happen to see it? Plainly, it IS the corporations who dictate the rules, and in some cases their lobbyists actually WRITE them. I believe BOTH parties are water-carriers for the plutocracy. I agree with you that illegal immigration is a burden. Social Security is not the problem - it should have been kept in a locked box. I was a small business owner, know the problems, too many regs and gov't intrusion.Common ground!
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/03/8617728-30-companies-paid-less-than-zero-taxes-in-recent-years
You are slicker than slick. You complain about the voter turn out. Yes.. its lower then it should be. Yet the simple majority is still voting in the most important elections. 2008.... %56.8%, 2004.... 55.3%, the remaining non voters chose not to exercise their rights, some because they are like you, some working, some are not home due to school, vacations, war or working out of the country, some are ill, some nursing homes and assisted living, and some really care less and never pay attention to anything. The estimates of Occupy anything is less then a 0.00004% of the population. Steve stated, "Nothing changes when you have to maintain the status quo". " You have to change the society for the politics to change ". Steve you are slicker then slick. "To all the sane people who love America and love the status quo of our style of government , yes we need to correct areas, but No we don't have to change the society for the politics to change or in steve view change the style of government. Steve, your style of changing society and politicians ....is not the major majority of Americans style of changing anything. You are a wolf in sheep clothing. OMG = status quo = zero
-End corporate loopholes that enable 30 top corps. not to pay taxes for 3 years(G/E etc) -Medicare should be able to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies to save tax payers billions. - End the perks of congress - limo's, excessive staff etc.- they are not royalty. - Term limits for members of Congress. - End the rule of America by U.S. Supreme Court by having congress limit its jurisdiction as provided for in our constitution. We didn't fight a revolution to have 5 people tell us what to do. - Undertake actions (to be specified) to assure that Americans are playing on a level playing field and have a fair chance at the American Dream. -No more bank bailouts by U.S. taxpayers. -Require that a stockbuyer has to hold the stock for at least 5 minutes - to avoid the wild swings that de-stabilize our markets with massive nano-second trading. -Remove our troops from Germany, Korea, Japan, Afghanistan etc., but continue to strike at Al Qaeda (and any other threatening group) by high tech and special forces. Every soldier in Afghanistan costs approximately $1,000,000 per annum. Hire the returning soldiers to guard our borders at $50,000 and save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. -Protect existing American jobs from further erosion by eliminating corporate incentives to locate overseas. -Secure the borders.
- Stop foreign baby farms by ending automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and those who deliberately come to u.s. to have the child in order to set the stage for eventual green card status for that child's family. -Treat China the way they treat us. If they impose a 25% tariff on our goods ( which I understand - perhaps mistakenly - to be the case), we do the same on their goods - I am led to believe we impose 1/10th the duties on their goods. - Put real pressure on China to adjust their currency to its real value. - Create a tariff equal to the wage differential between other countries and ours, so that American workers do not have to compete vs. slave labor making 85 cents per hour and living in cardboard shacks without running water or electricity. - Undertake direct action against companies like Whirlpool (boycott) who move american jobs over the border and then sell back into our markets by precluding them from selling back into our market for 10 years. -Recognize the average I.Q. is 98, and since the avg American is not a rocket scientist ,we need jobs available that they can perform - relatively low tech. - Recognize we cannot innovate our way to full employment: if you take all the high tech jobs of Apple, Google etc., combined, they do not equal 1/3 of G.M.s labor force in 1980.
- Get money out of politics, shorten the time for electioneering and hold elections on week end days so it is easier for working people to vote. - Limit the amount that a politician can spend on re-election so that they don't spend half their time fund-raising, and that debates on issues take place when the bulk of the politicians are actually present in the people's debating halls - the halls are currently empty - that is why one rarely sees CSPAN wide shots. - Last for now requires an awful lot of thought and input, but has been lingering in my mind since I first saw robots on a Japanese assembly line, and thought - our auto assembly lines require thousands of people - so the profits of production were shared between the workers and capital on some basis - let's assume 40% for labor 60% for capital. When the work force is reduced from 3,000 to 300, and productivity remains the same - labor's part of the profits (for this probably erroneous example) is reduced to 4% and capital gets 96%. What is going to happen to the other 2700 people. Right now we face millions of workers over 50, who will never find meaningful work again. That reduction in the share of labor's profits should be recaptured, presumably by taxation, and those workers should be afforded a reasonable chance to re-enter the work force. Obviously, we need to restore our infrastructure; teaching; medical help etc..Help me here - how do we protect them and profit from their labors?
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-26.htm
To elaborate on my point re electorate participation - I should have researched this issue,and I will do so - but I believe there was a massive turnout in the Iraqi elections. If so, this would demonstrate that there is a high degree of turnout because of turmoil and dissatisfaction. I'll check.
Turnout in U.S. presidential elections since 1980 ranged from 58-62%. Latest elections in Tunisia 70%; Greece 70%; Sudan 72%. I believe the evidence supports the contention that a lower turnout reflects contentment with the present political order. Obviously, I may be proven to be in error
Agree on the uptick rule. One of the great things about being 73 is most of our serious thinking may well be completed by 5:00 a.m..
Or apathy? Or failure to be informed enough about the process or the issues??? The people I know who don't vote are not so much content with the current political order (in fact they are not at all content) but they don't believe their vote makes a difference. They don't understand that a non vote has just as much impact as a vote....
It was apathy that I thought I was addressing. I absolutely agree with you that a non vote has the same effect as a vote. Being a citizen involves hard work. But the apathy, I think, stems from essentially being content with the existing order.
Sigh.
I had to cut short my reply to you because my computer wasn't working right, and the guy was here to fix it. Maybe I am using the wrong word - contentment. What I am trying to convey is that the citizen finds the present arrangement tolerable, therefore, he(she) is not prompted to action. I believe that we may either already approached, or are rapidly approaching, the point of no return. The "occupy" people, I believe, have found the present situation "intolerable" for a myriad of reasons(which we could elaborate on as time passes). If Oakland is not a one-off but,rather, a paradigm for future conduct, things could rapidly get out of control. It appears to me that the tea party found itself precisely in that position. I remember watching Rick Santelli, at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expressing his anger at the proposed bailout of some homeowners - while on the air at CNBC. It was no longer tolerable to be told the government was going to engage in another transfer of wealth to "others". He hollered out to his compatriots in the pits - and there was a resounding rejection of the idea of the wealth transfer. The resultant movement, while spirited, did within the confines of existing political order, achieve great results. They have stopped much governmental activity. Remains to be seen what positive results they will achieve. The "occupiers" have lost all hope in the existing political arrangement. Their demands are for structural change.
Jerry, we are both 73. I have no investment in error. If I am wrong, I will gladly concede the point and move on. But I am not sure that we advance the discussion by using labels: "socialist", "communist", "right wing nut", "fascist". I like some socialist organizations, and we have had a mixed economy since we were both boys. I like the fire department (socialist); I get a warm and fuzzy feeling realizing that police officers are on patrol at night (socialist); yes I even like the post office. I'll go one step further (first I thank you for your service to the nation), but my time in the military was the most "communistic" experience I had: we lived in common barracks, ate common meals,wore uniforms, followed military ritual, and did some of the most inexplicable things I ever did in my life. So,perhaps, we could drop the label and try to figure out what we do to address the problem of the 2700 workers who have been rendered obsolete, in some cases lost their homes, lost many if not all of the accoutrements of head of the family, and watched their children's future disappear down the sewer of life. We don't have to worry about the "haves" - they will take care of themselves;the poor as the bible says - "we have always had with us", but beware of the "used to haves" - they are knowledgeable, some militarily trained, and AWARE though modern communication techniques that they live under a gov't - of, by and for the corporate aristocracy.
You can grumble about an "entitlement generation" but the only way to fix that is by changing society, not politics. The only way to keep people from living on debt is by changing society, not policy. So slick.
No, they're taking the responsibility onto their shoulders by embodying self-empowerment instead of giving up their power to a "representative" who doesn't care about them. We can put all our hopes into someone, but then we'll get a Scott Brown.
1) You missed the point about the military. When you're int he military, you live a communal life, and you don't have control over your life. You do what you're told, and you don't fight authority. Mr. Jagiello was talking about how being a soldier is living under authoritarian rule, just like authoritarian communism. 2) The Post Office is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution in Article I: Section 8. Take it up with a constitutional convention.
Instead of actually seeing what the Occupation is about, it's so much easier to just call them "spoiled" communists. But the occupiers I've talked with don't have any labels for the critics, except "uninformed." OWS doesn't fit into the left-right battle because it isn't pushing a liberal or conservative agenda. It's pushing a liberty agenda. It's against the rotating door of politics that leads to government handouts to corporations and corporate handouts to government. This is what Occupy is against: http://goo.gl/Nf1Xe Is that a right-wing agenda, or a left-wing agenda? Here's one example: "Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed's rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO." We want justice.
I have been reading your posts of course. Thoughtful, articulate, well researched. I placed forward in excess of 20 positions which might advance the interests of the middle and working class, and, which in large part should be the subject of agreement. They are designed to strengthen our economy and our nation as well as provide a platform for successful upward mobility. By and large there has been no substantive response. So I leave the field to you. I truly have better things to do with my time than engage in a hollow exchange of platitudes. Good luck - we are going to need it. I will watch the "fire next time" consume us. To paraphrase Ecclesiates the fire will fall on the just and unjust alike.