The occupation of our towns and cities is a Movement, not just a protest, and as such, there are discussions, activities, working groups that come out of it.  Whilst not attending the occupations, many “99%ers” go back to their computers at home and share what they’ve discussed during the day.  Whilst the number of occupiers may be much lower than the initial protest on the 15th, the number of people tweeting and sharing their concerns over the internet has steadily risen. Even when they are not on the streets, they are still actively involved in the movement.  The function the occupation serves (that is, the campsites in the cities) is as a base of operations.  A place where those active in the movement can get together, discuss issues and consider action.

In my opinion, an open space for political discussion and rallying should be provided as standard by any democratic institution (as Romans had in the public space of the forum), but without an indoor public space for such activity, we have been using the only public realm we have – the streets.

I only speak for myself here, and I’m sure many of the movement would disagree, but I don’t see how a tent or other object left on the streets during an occupation is any different from at any time.  If there is someone there to defend their right to keep the object there, then it should be left.  If it has literally been dumped, then the police should have the power to remove it. In my opinion, any occupiers should be cooperative with the police in identifying materials left in our public realm that are in use (i.e. occupied tents, banners that are in the care of members of the occupy movement) and those which are not (i.e. unoccupied tents, banners that have been dumped by someone who can’t be bothered to take a bulky object like that home with them).  Such cooperation will give the occupation the credibility to last longer, and further strengthen its aims.

“Firstly, I am very disappointed with this website.  1. It is flashy and confusing, looking like its made for 5 year old kids rather than adults who actually care about this stuff. 2. In the what would your eco-town look like section, it is ridiculous that you can only choose 5 from the list.  To be a really good eco-town, all of those should be satisfied and no one is any more important than another. Results are also going to be skewed by the fact that people start at the top, and ones further down the list will tend to get neglected more often. 3. General feedback is mixed up with this silly questionnaire where the questions are again stupid.  I mean, the topics depend on so much that the answers are meaningless.  For example, I am very willing to reduce energy consumption, but not if it greatly affects my costs to the point that it becomes out of proportion with the environmental saving.  I would rather use the same energy, but from a sustainable source.

“I am an architectural engineering student with particular interest in the social and environmental impacts of architecture. For this reason, I particularly care about HOW these issues are resolved, as opposed to what I would prioritise.  A good architectural designer should be able to balance the benefits and consequences of designing an eco-town rather than go by public priorities, which aren’t necessarily taking everything into consideration.

“For example, it may be that most public want “affordable” family detached homes that are reasonably spaced out.  However, for the interest of environmental concerns, it may be better to encourage a more communal living style, where car driving is discouraged by having mixed-use developments rather than zoning. Since the largest car-use is for a daily commute, the people who live in the houses should work within walking distance.  Thus, it should be calculated how many jobs would be created in any given area and enough housing created within easy walking distance of these to easily cover those jobs, also taking into consideration those who don’t work, work from home or whose business involves travelling around.  The same thing for entertainment.  Perhaps the research that should be conducted at this stage should be asking potential residents what they like to do in their spare time and making sure that those facilities are provided within walking distance, rather than having to travel to the nearest city for every need.

“Studies should also be conducted on whether the common practice of communities disintegrating because easy commuting to cities means that residents only socialise with friends in the city rather than their local area can be discouraged by the design of the town itself.

“I know I have only covered transportation here, but there are other advantages to having very close-knit communities, such as that heating and energy systems can be shared and therefore made more efficient by economy of scale.  It may be that having more compact living may also open up more space for cultivation by small-time farmers who could then sell back to the community they live in.  This type of farming, run under some kind of cooperative scheme would probably be much more efficient than expecting residents all to grow their own food, where it is unlikely that many of them would have the time or will to run an allotment or vegetable garden.

“It may also be an advantageous to make spaces flexible.  For example, several buildings could be initially zoned as residential, but designed with enough flexibility that they could be easily changed to commercial if demand required it, rather than buildings having to be demolished if such changes need to be made, or that outdoor spaces may initially be a car parking space, but that it could be easily converted into a pleasant patio space for a resident who doesn’t own a car.  Most car parking spaces wouldn’t currently fit this criteria and are thus wide empty ugly voids to those who do not own cars.

“In short, I’m very much into the idea of eco-towns.  It needs to happen, and I want to be at the forefront of supporters for this cause.  However, I think that the way that this has been conducted so far, in true Labour Government fashion, has been disastrously top-down heavy with no real substance. “

However, let’s not blow this race issue out of proportion. It’s a great achievement of America to have overcome any racism left in them enough to elect an African-American president, but if anyone took that as an issue whilst voting, positive or negative, they are fools.  Besides, in this election, if anything, racism actually counted in Obama’s favour, with 96% of the African-American vote going to him. In the 2004 election, the statistic was 88% to Kerry against 11% Bush amongst African-American voters.  Was this improvement all because of Obama’s policy, or did Obama gain some of that African-American vote simply because of the colour of his skin?  It would be a fool who would consider race over policy in deciding who to vote for.

Now, because I don’t think that race was an issue in this race, I’d like to reflect on what this win really means for America and the world.

Democratic Party Control

With such a commanding majority in the Senate, Congress and with a Democratic President, the Democratic Party is phenominally powerful. Many people, particularly Republicans,would say that this is extremely dangerous, that this “unchecked” power would mean that bad policies would be left practically unopposed.  I think this is a very cynical view.  It shows a certain distrust of the politicians and the process through which acts go through to be passed.  I admit that it may be harder for a Republican to push through their proposals, but they lost the election, that has to be expected! But the Republican voice will still be heard through those politians who do still hold seats and where such policy is relevant and more appropriate, democratic representatives will back it.

Foreign Affairs

The USA has already gained kudos with the rest of the world by electing Barack Obama as its next president, there are very few countries that would be happier to have seen a McCain administration moving into the White House (see this article). However, Obama must keep his promises and demonstrate a cooperative attitude to keep this reputation.  Based on what I have seen – his interviews, the debates and his policies – I think he can do it, but he will need the support of the legislature.

In terms of the war, I think it is great that Obama would like to look at peaceful solutions before rushing into battle.  I think that an effective army is one that works alongside diplomacy in choosing the right course of action.  It seems that for the past few years, the American army have simply been sending soldiers into any regions of the Middle-East that they see a problem with.  This can’t work! In the end, the middle-Eastern culture is too different to the American for them simply to surrender and embrace democracy as though they had always had it.  It doesn’t work like that over there.  They are going to have to discuss with the current leaders and the people to work out how they want to proceed and what the citizens of those places would really benefit from.  If this involves a quick removal of troops from their country, I think that the USA should be ready to do that.

Energy

For the sake of the Election, Obama somewhat abandoned the idea of the USA drilling for oil and promoting Nuclear fuel which his opponent proposed and instead focused on “green” technologies such as wind and solar.  The truth is that the only way for the USA to wean itself off fossil fuels effectively in the relatively short term is to build nuclear power stations.  However, I’m generally a supporter of alternative energy sources and clean technology but the question as to how the election affects this is whether Obama’s investment of clean technologies will include those policies which McCain promoted.  I think they will, and I think this is a good thing.  I think it will begin to put the USA back on track to lead in the enviromental improvement of this world.

Taxes

I don’t know who got the idea that having a government with slightly more social-economic ideals than another would make taxes rise through the roof, but many Americans seem to believe that that is the case.  Only this morning I overheard someone saying that Obama’s would mean that everyone would be getting more taxes.  It wouldn’t.  Just as in Britain when a new government moves into power, the tax structure changes, but the Obama’s tax increase proposals are only going to affect those earning more than $100,000 a year, and I somehow doubt that the student who I overheard will be earning that much in the next 4 years.

Government Spending

Taxes is all linked in with government spending, and the assumption is that Obama’s plan involves lots of projects which would cost the government money and that this would have to come from somewhere, that somewhere being taxes.  Well, in this instance I would say that this is to some extent true, but only because the existing administration’s $700 bn deficit means that further borrowing by the government is pretty much out of the question.  But, a good budget could put this right.  The US pulling out of the middle-East will help – that HUGE defence budget might finally go on something worthwhile, like education, policing and creating better communities.

I would say this, because I don’t believe that killing people is ever an answer to a government and political problem, but logic can also back me up, because if it is assumed that all the money that would have paid for warfare under a continuing war in the middle-East went on say, education in the USA, well then you’ve just created a multi-billion dollar education tax-credit for America with 100% of the money staying in the USA. No US army paying middle-Eastern nations for their food and resources whilst the US occupies their land – the money stays here, the USA, where it belongs.

OK, I think that’s enough

But if you have any comments, please write below.  Please note, however, that I’m a student, not a political analyist or even a journalist, and any of the above could be inaccurate or totally wrong.  It’s just my speculative opinion.

Have fun America!  I believe in you… now.