Friday, August 30, 2013

INCARCERATION IN AMERICA- MOTIVE: PROFIT! © 2013 by Wayne Dan Lewis, Sr



When investigating a murder, police often look for a motive.  Even if the perpetrator is immediately available, they need to establish a viable motive.  Even if the police develop a motive, they have to bring corroborating evidence that is unquestionable, and beyond a reasonable doubt.  So too, we have the issue of excessive incarceration.  The Motive:  Profit-Beyond a reasonable doubt.  How do we prove it?  We look for evidence that is supported by facts.  Nothing can be circumstantial.  The evidence must be without a doubt. 

Preliminary/Background information:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statics of the Department of the Justice.[1]
v     Prison population declined for 3rd year in a row to 1,571,031 for 2012,
v     California accounted for 51% of the decrease in state prison population during 2012;
v     Nine states had a decrease of over 1000 prisoners, including California, Texas, North Carolina, Colorado, Arkansas, New York, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland;
v     Louisiana and the Federal prison systems had more than 1000 prisoners in 2012

Who are the possible suspects?
v     CCA or Corrections Corporation of America[2] (CWX on the Stockmarket)[3];
v     GEO Group[4] (GEO on the Stockmarket)[5].   
In actuality, there is no doubt that Mass Incarceration in America is well on its way.  And as quiet as it is kept, the inevitability of everyone becoming victims to this new era of incarceration may have not quite hit home.

Unlike a murder investigation where the evidence may require determining whose DNA[6] is left at the scene, there is no question that the DNA belongs to at least 2 of these Corporate giants
: CCA and GEO.  These two powerhouse groups can be found throughout America, if not internationally, proposing, or taking an active role in the management of current and formerly public operated facilities that house many of America’s inmates.  There maybe more for-profit corrections operators, but these two rise to the top as possible corroborators who play a significant role in not only managing many of our federal, state and local jails and prisons, but possibly soliciting the influence of our political leaders in turning over public prisons for private management. 

Is there a Problem?
Quite frankly, there is no problem with a legal entity, or a for-profit group offering their services to a state, federal or local governmental entity.  Public-Private partnerships[7] have all but become a way of life throughout America.  For example, if we check closely, we will find healthcare, recreation, infrastructure, education, and now, of course, corrections and/or prison facilities all integrally working together to improve government’s role in managing tax dollars.  The benefit to the public entities is the supposed infusion of big dollars that would have otherwise been used throughout government, and thereby “saving the taxpayers dollars!”

The problem is that this alleged savings puts lives at risk.  Whose lives?  The lives of innocent men and women, who, whether convicted or not, will be subjected to financially influenced politicians and a criminal justice hierarchy (Sheriff’s, Police Administrators, Mayors, Council representatives, Aldermen) who could work to ensure that prison sentences will very rarely be to the minimum.  I suggest that the influence of the previously suggested suspects, CCA and the GEO group, will have such an impact on the lives of many men and women who, regardless of their guilt or innocence, will be forced to serve time in order to meet an proposed 90% guarantee occupancy.

Pros and Cons of PPP for Prisons[8]  
v     Prisons Operations have to weigh the cost of paying higher salaries and benefits as a public entity vs private partner who pays similar salaries, but keeps overtime and other benefits lower;
v     Performance for private entities are incentivized if for nothing else, renewal of contracts, also maintaining a safe environment, rehabilitation of inmates,
v     The issue of dependency becomes a concern when a private entity underbids and then raises its prices after being awarded the contract.
v     There is also the concern of transparency.  With governmental issues, inmates treatment has to be reported and their well-being must be documented, for the private enterprise, transparency maybe more difficult to achieve.

Is this Public-Private Partnership going too far?
Perhaps further investigation is advised, but the idea that there exists a partnership, that for-profit, requires a 90% minimum occupancy of the public, more specifically, of the Criminal Justice System at large, suggests that there will be less focused on Corrections’ main focus and that is, rehabilitation.  It is a far cry from healthcare for example, unless government agencies have to guarantee a 90% occupancy of patients in hospitals, or a 90% patient census for mental health facilities.  If this is remotely the case, then a partnership that guarantees such a large commitment by government agencies, opens the door to corruption.

If the State of Louisiana, for example, a state with possibly the highest number inmate population in the United States has to maintain a 90% occupancy, the lines will blur between who to let go as inmates, as well as the excessive number of cases in which prison sentences will include the maximum number of years, without justices taking judicial discretion.  Perhaps speculative, but a profit-motivated company that has billions of dollars to use to influence public officials on sentencing guidelines, can very well affect the outcome of sentences already in question when it comes to blacks and minorities.

Crying Wolf?
Yes, I am crying wolf!  I want to go on record as one of many, or perhaps a few too many, who don’t see a problem with this particular partnership.  There is no reason why a public-private partnership cannot exist between for-profit corporations and public entities on its face. History shows that they are working all of the time.  But given the record that exists here in America where People of Color as well as any other minorities are more likely to receive excessive sentences as compared to their White counter-parts for similar crimes, this door is opening too wide an opportunity for continued perceived disparate treatment in the Criminal Justice System.

For example: 48 States have been presented with the option to allow CCA to purchase their existing prison systems at $250,000,000 with a contingency of a guarantee of 90% population of prisoners for 20 years.[9]  States, such as Louisiana, which has the largest prison population in the United States[10], would seem to have no problem with submitting to this contingency for the money.  But the issue here is that with crime rates reportedly reduced nation-wide[11], the contingency of maintaining a 90% occupancy rate would suggest, that certain laws would require that judges impose the maximum amount of time on every individual brought before them. 

Solution? or Let’s just see how this goes?
If we want to see how far this goes, believing and trusting that our political leaders will keep an eye out for any improprieties, then we are far more naïve that we let on.  As a country, we have turned our backs on the Social Security System, and right now, the Social Security System[12] is nearly bankrupt because our political leaders “borrowed” from the system without returning the funds back to keep the system solvent.  I don’t think we should allow this particular Public-Private Partnership with prisons to go forth without knowing what safeguards are in place to protect People of Color and other minorities.  Why the emphasis on People of Color and other minorities?

As great a country as America is, at over 200 years of age, she is still racially immature, and acts in such a way as to bend the law, or even disregard the law when it comes to People of Color, and to the chagrin of those whose rights are violated, heads are turned, and misdirectional plays are projected that suggests that People of Color are always throwing down the race card.  Well, this is a pre-emptive strike.  I am throwing down the race card, and believe with all due disrespect to those who twist the truth in order to achieve a perverse control, that to allow this Public-Private Partnership of prisons to continue to go forth without safeguards or controls is setting America up for another failure.  And while People Color will be the victims of the lack of controls because so many of us could care less about the incarcerated, the opportunity to meet the contingency of a 90% inmate population has to eventually reach beyond minorities.  It has to reach to poor whites in rural areas, who like many minorities are poor and unable to afford an opportunity to defend themselves.  So yes, after the race card, next, I am throwing down the poor, rural white folks card.  For these folks, who have always voted against their own self-interest, they will very likely be locked up with the very minorities whom they have had a grave disdain.  And all of this for a Public-Private Partnership of prisons that will eventually see no color of skin, and will not distinguish between urban areas, rural areas or even suburbia because the money will be too good to pass up, is my proposing.

Overcoming the M.O.
Earlier, we discussed components of an investigation for murder.  Another analogy is the Method of Operation.  For big corporations, it is their ability to employ lobbyists.  According to the ProPublica website, our two corporate suspects have doled out a tremendous amount of dollars to influence prison management and reforms:
For example:
v     Corrections Corporation of America, whose revenue totaled approximately $1.7 billion dollars in 2011, has spent approximately $17.4 million over the last 10 years.[13]
v     The GEO group, also a corrections management group, revenues totaled approximately $1.6 million for 2011, according to their annual report, paid $2.5 million towards lobbying efforts for their corporation over the last 8 years.[14]
The average, ordinary American does not have the wherewithal to fight from within courts when they are accused and have to face prosecution. The justice that the average American seeks is now affected by corporations that apparently dictate policies, if not laws that will eventually imprison reasonably convicted persons for longer than necessary.  Fighting the system for those who are convicted is now joined by those who are also innocent, trying to prove that they don’t belong in prison for not only the crime that they are accused of, but for the corporate structure that is in place to take away their freedom.  Correction, our freedom.

The solution, an aged old one, is two-fold, or requires an emphasis on one of two options.  It is indeed that complicated as to how to approach this situation.  One aspect of the solution is to call, email, or send a letter to our respective representatives and/or make it known that we want the Public-Private Partnership to have safe-guards that prevent Correctional Corporations from having an undue influence on the Criminal Justice System.  Or, we can speak out on the methods and applications being used by Correctional Corporations that may seek to bypass the judicial process that focuses more on incarceration than rehabilitation, thereby increasing recidivism and, ensuring as close as possible, a 90% guaranteed occupancy.

Conclusion

There really is no conclusion here.  The idea of mass incarceration for-profit is very much in full swing, for possibly 20 or more years, and the only conclusion that is logical, is the ability to step in and demand of our legislators, and other governmental representatives that they not be overzealous in their rush to save money to the respective areas (local, state or federal agencies), without carefully weighing out how Public-Private Partnerships in prisons will eventually backfire.

If there is a failure to place safeguards in place that will keep corporations reporting and government agencies regularly inspecting and improving the environment for these operations to work effectively, we, as a country are doomed.  If corporations’ effect is merely by the dollars spent on lobbying for control, rather than focusing on reducing prison populations, or reducing crime, we can expect that our country will be made up of still yet, the largest, mass incarceration around the world.  If that is our goal, then the motive is definitely----- profit-driven.

Bibliography:
v     Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration-

v     Report: Private prison companies boost incarceration rates for profit    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988397/-Report-Private-prison-companies-boost-incarceration-rates-for-profit# 



v     By the Numbers: The United States Growing For Profit Detention Industry: http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry
v     Jaling Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-privatization_b_1414467.html  
v     Prisons for Profit-Corporations are running many American prisons—are they puttings profits before prisoners? http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/video.html
v     The Economist takes on America's obsession with prison http://thejha.org/node/91   

v     DOJ: Prison Inmate Population Shows Modest Decline


Disclaimer:  No legal advice should be implied from this posting.  Consult your respective Senator, Congressional representative, or State or local official.  




[1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf
[2] CCA-Corrections Corporation of America- http://www.cca.com/cca-research-institute/
[3] Corrections Corporations of America Stockmarket-CWX-  http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Corrections_Corporation_of_America_(CXW)
[7] Public-Private Partnerships- http://www.fema.gov/plan-prepare-mitigate
[8] Pros and Cons for Public Private Partnerships – (Jon Howell, EHow Contributor) http://www.ehow.com/info_8110862_pros-cons-private-prisons.html     

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

BOYCOTTING- HOW IT WORKS-WHY IT FAILS[1] © 2013 by Wayne Dan Lewis, Sr


Theme: What determines success or failure of a boycott?

Why this Topic?

Let’s be clear.  The recent trial of George Zimmerman[2] has called for boycotting the entire state of Florida as a result of the not guilty verdict of George Zimmerman in his shooting of Travon Martin[3].  The call for the boycott surrounds the Stand Your Ground Law[4], and how Zimmerman initially used this defense as a means to defend his shooting of the unarmed 17 year-old.  I will not spend the time debating the pros and cons of the case.  There are enough of us who are contesting the outcome, with what I believe is good reason.  Contesting and boycotting are not necessarily the same, so I want to be clear, that I am focused on the issue of boycotting, how it works, and why, even in the case of George Zimmerman and the State of Florida, why it could fail[5]. Not saying that I hope it fails, but why it could fail.

Additionally, the term boycott gets thrown out very quickly in a response to a community’s dissatisfaction.  Many people appear to be on board when the term is initially thrown out, but what does it mean to “boycott”?  We may all have a basic understanding of the term.  We may understand that it means, not to buy someone’s products, or not to do business at a particular location, or with a particular company.  But what does it mean in terms of who does it really affect, and to what extent are we who choose to participate in a boycott, willing to go to bring about the desire results?

If we would refer to one of the many definitions of boycotting, we would learn that it means to abstain from, or cease from engaging in activity that could result in an economic loss as a result of refusing to do business with an individual, group or agency.  More specifically:

boy·cott[6]
/ˈbɔɪkɒt/ Show Spelled [boi-kot] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.  to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
2. to abstain from buying or using: to boycott foreign products.

As we look at the definition(s) above, I thought I would look at five historical boycotts that have taken place throughout world history.  What am I looking for? I am looking for whether they failed of succeeded?   I am looking for that point at which boycotting made a difference.  I am looking to see where the intended target gave in fully, partially, if at all, and what made the difference that the intended target of a boycott decided to give in.  I am looking for why people choose to boycott, while others don’t believe that it will make a difference.  Will I find these answers?  Not necessarily during this posting, but I am looking beyond this posting, and hope that you will too, because there has to be something that you want to stand up for/against.  Those five boycotts are
v     Occupy Wall Street 2011;
v     The Tea Party of 2009;
v     The Boston Tea Party of 1773;
v     The Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955, and
v     Tianaman Square Uprising of 1989 (The lone protester)
Let’s take a brief look at these five historical instances and see if you agree whether they failed or succeeded.

Occupy Wall Street (Did it fail or succeed?)  Failed!
Said to have begun in September of 2011, this group was formed to draw attention to what was said to be corporate influence on government by the 1% of influential Americans over the 99% of the working poor of Americans.  To this day, this group continues to have events protesting how corporations affect the outcome of laws where the rich are said to be exempt from the very laws that the poor are most likely to be arrested and prosecuted for.  Or perhaps worst yet, is that the rich are oblivious to the impact of their money-making decisions that in many ways contribute to the poor getting poorer, and the rich getting richer.
“Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.” www.occupywallst.org   [7]

The Tea Party 2009[8](Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
Reportedly, before President Obama had taken office in January of 2009, Rick Santelli, of  CNBC News,[9] was among those ranting about how government was taking tax payer dollars to bail out private companies.  The contention was that the government was rewarding bad behavior by corporate America, particularly banks, investment companies and insurances companies who had reportedly caused an economic collapse.  Santelli began the uproar, but within less than 3 months, the tea party was (re)-born, suggesting that the President Obama’s stimulus programs was taxation without representation (again).

The Boston Tea Party 1773 [10]  (Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
Between 1767 and 1773, Colonists were imposed upon a tax by the British Parliament to pay for British soldiers stationed in and around the American establish colonies to protect the settlers from the Canadians and their Native American Allies gained through the French and Indian war (1754-1763).  The Colonists protested the taxation given that they believed that the soldiers that could be used could from their colonies rather than from Britain.  In response to the excessive taxation (The Stamp Act 1765-repealed 1766 after protests) and the Townshend Duties or Revenues Act, 1767-repealed 1770, after protests), which were imposed on just about anything that the settlers sold or used, including tea.  One of the means by which the colonists decided to protest the unfair taxation by the British government was to disguise themselves as Native Americas and board ships belonging to the East India Company and dump 20 chests of tea, 600,000 pounds into the Boston Harbor.  For their actions, the British Government imposed additional taxes on the American Colonies to pay for the loss of revenues by the dumping.  This and other actions between the colonies and Great Britain, would eventually lead to the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) [11]

The Montgomery Boycott of 1955 [12] (Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
It could be argued, according to the website entitled, that the “The Montgomery Bus Boycott” (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html),
began not on December 1, 1955, but as far back as 1943, when a black woman, named Rosa Parks was left at a bus stop after paying her fair, told to get off and board at the back door, only to have the bus pull off. Or maybe the bus boycott had its origin when in the early 1950’s a black minister tried to get other black bus patrons to get off the bus because he had to give up his seat to a white man, when unfortunately, he was told: “he should have known better.
The story of the Montgomery Bus boycott is well documented, with Ms. Rosa Parks as the matriarch of this historical piece of American History.  Her refusal to give up her seat to a white man, December 1, 1955 was perhaps either a culmination of frustration, or the lynchpin that brought a nation to awareness of the reports of acts and laws that were passed and enforced against People of Color, merely because of the color of their skin.  Ms. Parks’ arrest and the subsequent boycott would lead to an economic impact that affect all of downtown Montgomery.  But not only that, it would lead to also, violence against a people whose only outcry was to be treated like human beings, but instead, their homes would be firebombed, they would be arrested on trumped up charges, their businesses would be targeted maliciously, all because they wanted to be treated with dignity, as per the Constitution of the United States.

Historically, it could be said that the protest for equality for People of Color began in the case of Brown vs the Board of Education, [13] or in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson 1896 [14] where a black man sat in the “wrong” or legally sanctioned location on a train (by race) in the State of Louisiana, where separate but equal was the law of the land.  Perhaps the protest of People of Color, can be said to have begun in the case of Dread Scott (1975) ,[15] where the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2, that People of Color, whether free or slaves, were not citizens of the United States, and could not sue in Federal Courts, particularly in this case, for his freedom.

Protesting for the right to be treated fairly by People of Color in the United States, seems to have been, and continues to be, to this day, an on-going fight for justice.   For example, as recently as the position of Chief Justice, the Louisiana Supreme Court attempted to deny Chief Justice Bernadette Johnson the position of Chief Justice, citing that she has not fulfilled the right to the position, despite having been appointed by the United States Supreme Court with all rights and privileges befitting any judge holding her position and having met the standards so established by the State of Louisiana. [16]

Tianaman Square- The Lone Protestor [17](Did he Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
I remember seeing the news that day.  I don’t recall where I was specifically, but I know that it didn’t matter where I was because the picture/video would be shown around the world, for days to come.  It was an apparent young Asian, possibly a student.  He was captured on film, standing down a armored tank.  He was captured on film obstructing the passage of a tank, that perhaps had played a role in rolling over hundreds of student protesters, who had opposed recent actions of by the Chinese Government.  In a response to the uprising by the students, the government dispatched the PLA, or the People’s Liberation Army, said to be the Military Arm of the Communist Party of China. 
The film showed a sort of latter-day David and Goliath semblance, where despite the inevitability of his impending doom, the young man, armed only with his jacket and a shopping bag, stood in front of a tank and caused it to stop.  When the tank attempted to go around the young man, the young man side-stepped in front of the tank to keep it from going past him, but to also dare the operator to run over him.  Subsequently, the young man was taken by force by the military from the sidelines of the street to a place, to this day, we may never know.

In that brief moment, we saw a lone protester, who may have been involved in the larger protest.  What we saw perhaps was the equivalent of the many protests that rise up from individuals, groups, or political forces, that stand against perceived unfairness, unlawfulness, unethical, or even the lawfully sanctioned.  The risk, or cost to protest, may cost one’s life, or livelihood, but one who protests, has to be prepared to pay that price, even in at a moment’s notice, as indicated in the video .

Boycotting-How it Works, Why it Fails?
When I first proposed this topic, I wanted to focus on emotions vs. strategy.  I could find nothing to suggest that emotions were the guiding force behind whether boycotting succeeded or failed, although emotion seemed to have been a very important component when we look at the examples given above.  But the reason(s) why boycotts succeeded or fail has to on strategy.  At least, that’s what I got out of Professor Brayden Kings blog,  Kellog Insight, at the Northwestern University entitled, Why Boycotts Succeed-and Fail [18] (As you can see, my title isn’t original).  Here is a summary of Professor King’s initial observation from a research he conducted:

First of all Dr. King hypothesized 3 things about the strategy of boycotting.  He hypothesized that boycotts were going to be successful based on:
  1. media attention & sales decline, or
  2. media attention and reputation decline, or
  3. media attention will result in high targets conceding

 His study looked at 53 of 144 companies/firms that conceded to protests between 1990 and 2005.  From his study, he determined the following:
v     Sales declination was less an indicator of boycotting than corporate reputation.  He indicated that if reputation was affected, that companies were more likely to concede
v     Corporate entities with strong reputations were less likely to concede to boycotts if their reputations remained strong, even if sales declined;
v     Companies with a poor reputation were less vulnerable to boycotts, because they had less to loose.

Lessons learned
If any lessons were learned from Dr. King alone, based on his background, it would seem that we should know, going forward, the following:
  1. Choose your company or group carefully, noting their reputation in the community, and determine their sales success;
  2. The best companies to boycott are companies whose good reputations are on the decline;
  3. Have a plan to involve the media, from the very beginning

Obviously these lessons relate to companies, but what about the political arena?  It would appear that if it can be determined that if a company supports a political party or candidate whose position is in conflict with the community’s then, that company, or set of companies who have a reputation that is vulnerable, would be the most likely candidate to target for boycotting in order to get the attention of a political entity.

How Protests Matters- Quote:
Organizing people around disciplined, consistent non-violent resistance in which you neither meekly submit to injustice, nor angrily lash out against it, but instead move in a calm and determined way to challenge it is extraordinarily difficult.  But it works.  Getting people to come out every once and a while, hold a “protest” is, by contrast, pretty easy.  And, in the right frame of mind, its even fun.  I’ve had fun doing it.  But it doesn’t really change anything.                                      Matthew Yglesis [19]

Be prepared
If you are going to participate or initiate a protest, be prepared to stand your ground (no pun intended).  Be prepared to stand for something that you believe in.  Be prepared to stand your ground in the pursuit of fairness, justice and equality, even if you have to stand alone.   Make it known that you are protesting, but be prepared for the backlash, or the pushback, possibly to the detriment of your reputation, your finances, your family, because protesting in many cases means that you are affecting someone else’s family, livelihood and finances.  Even if they are being unfair to you, they are not being unfair to their cause if it puts food on their family’s table.

Be prepared to stay the fight.  Be prepared for the success of the protest, because no battle won means that it is all over.  Many people don’t take being protested against lightly, and they will come back, possibly, with a vengeance.
Be prepared to be called a trouble-maker, or someone who is just trying to make a name for themselves.  Be prepared with a set of demands, that spells out exactly what you/your group wants, how you want it, and by what time.  Spell out benefits, not perks; spell out needs, not wants.  Be prepared to state how the actions or inactions of the targeted group affects or damages your well-being, as a group, not individually.  No one cares about you as an individual.   Be prepared to stand for a cause that is bigger than you are, and stand strong.

Conclusion
Boycotting, How does it work, why does it fail?  That was the focus of this post.  With all due respect to boycotts of the past, boycotting going forward will work best when the strategy includes targeting businesses that have a reputation that is vulnerable, especially when the media is involved.  What causes boycotts to fail is when the targeted business or entity has a strong reputation in the community, a reputation of doing things for those most in need in the community, i.e. children’s charities, pets groups or the elderly. 
Boycotting works when the targeted entity’s sales are reduced because their source of business is impacted, and their reputation is vulnerable.

What we saw throughout the examples was organization, emotions, and a willingness to stand up for a cause bigger than anyone individual.  Personally, I believe that a key element of any boycotting, is that those who are participating are committed to the cause on the table, and not a cause that is unrelated.  If the media is involved, they will want to know that everyone is fighting for the same cause, otherwise, the overall intent will be lost before it gets started.  Whatever it is the boycott involves, be prepared with a strategy that includes leadership, a list of demands, why, and when they can be expected to be met.  And then, be prepared for the long road ahead.  As protesters, you have to prove that you are serious about your demands.  You have to prove that you are committed to not doing business with the targeted entity,  and that as a committed group, you are willing to do what it takes to make a difference.  Knowing this alone in preparation, or in consideration of conducting a boycott, may determine whether the boycott succeeds or fails.

Disclaimer:  This post should not be considered as an incentive to protest any given issue or towards any given  entity without legal advice.  No legal advice should be implied from this posting.  If you or your group are considering protesting an issue of importance to your job, community, or wherever you believe your rights have been violated, it is suggest that  you review the historical information provided here as well as consider looking up Professor Brayden King of Northwestern University, before pursuing an opportunity to protest.





[5] Not intended to be legal advice, all information is the opinion of the blogger only.  Your feedback is encouraged
[7] Occupy Wall Street- http://occupywallst.org/
[9] Rick Santelli, CNBC News- http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837966
[14] Plessy vs Ferguson- http://plessyvsferguson.com/
[16] Chief Justice Bernadette Johnson, Louisiana State Supreme Court- http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/278544/81/After-dispute-La-getting-first-black-top-judge
[17] Cole, Charlie, BBC News Tianaman Square- 1989- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4313282.stm
[18] King, Brayden, 2009, How Boycotts Succeed-and Fail http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/why_boycotts_succeed_and_fail
[19] Yglesias, Matthew, 2009,  What Are Today’s Protests Missing? http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/04/03/192396/what_are_todays_protests_missing/