Getting "On the List"

It was meant to serve as an antidote to all of the late-sixties anti-war imagery and sloganeering that was alienating to those who didn't identify with it. Camelot represented a hopeful time. Also, Bush had made the most cynical of all moves by telling us that we could do our post-9/11 patriotic duty by shopping. Jackie was a shopoholic. So, the idea was that even Jackie would stop shopping if it would prevent war with Iraq. Thus, the Stop Shopping campaign was born.

Since Congress was in a bizarre, jingoistic fog, we could not rely on it to represent the majority of Americans who opposed the war. I joined with other activists in encouraging individuals to "vote with their wallets" and support local business or charities rather than contributing to the corporate holiday retail economy in protest (I realize this has all sorts of labor implications -- it's not something I advocate now). Eventually, I would join with other online groups (in the U.S. and internationally) who were protesting the war through U.S. corporate boycott. Since corporate interests seemed more powerful than political machinations, this seemed more effective than protesting or sending endless letters and faxes to Congress.

This brings us to my sad action in November 2002. As part of a national sort of "buy nothing day" (organized online by -- if memory serves correctly -- a Quaker individual) before the one after Thanksgiving, three friends and I showed up at the Hollywood and Highland complex in Los Angeles. I wore my Jackie Kennedy outfit, and my companions wore black. The goal was to draw attention to the fact that as we went about our shopping, Iraqis were on the verge of living in constant terror. There were two approaches here. One was a "die in" where the people in black were meant to lie on the ground to represent fallen civilians. Another was to simply wander around, browsing with pre-made shopping bags. I can't remember what they said, but they had an image of Jesus on them, and were meant to communicate that the kind version of Jesus would prefer that we not focus on materialism, but preventing our soldiers and Iraqi civilians from dying senselessly. (Here -- I think this is the one.)

In the weeks before the action, I had corresponded with quite a few people about it. One message in particular asked how many individuals would be coming, who we were, etc.

By the time we made it from the parking garage up to the ground floor, we'd met at least four LAPD officers. I think there were eventually about twenty in view. One gave me his card, indicated that he knew who I was, that they had been expecting us, and instructed us not to enter the shopping center. Why? It was the policy of Hollywood and Highland not to allow anyone to carry bags with slogans on them. So -- the American Eagle Outfitters bags were ok, but our Jesus bags were not.

We ended up leaving and that was that. I did one tiny Buy Nothing Day protest in Union Square in San Francisco, and went to a few anti-war protests. I corresponded with the likes of Reverend Billy from the Church of Stop Shopping. I kept up with the online boycott work (never meeting any of the partners in person) until an oppositional member (perhaps a provocateur?) threw us into chaos. By then the war was underway, and I was questioning the whole notion of anti-consumerism as a tactic. The Stop Shopping campaign included ethical consumerism as an aspect (local, fair trade, eco-friendly) and that was the thread I decided to pursue in the following years.

As must be clear, I don't look back on that 6-7 month period of my life with pride, but I definitely believe I had the right to my political speech and actions.

The compounding factor - whose significance I was too naive to fully understand at the time - was that I worked at the RAND Corporation, nearly half of which is funded by Defense projects. Many on the Left castigate RAND as though it's a monolithic entity. Actually, it's very decentralized and diversely funded. I could never have worked for any Department of Defense projects. I provided administrative support to a group of researchers who studied the economics of aging. My work was funded mostly by the National Institutes of Health. This created no ethical dilemma.

Even six months ago I didn't understand that my political activities would make my employment at RAND seem suspicious. I had so much faith in my right to engage in political activity that it honestly never occurred to me. Plus -- I was so ineffectual! I now get, based on the need for intelligence professionals to rely on connection-tracing, that it would have been necessary to ascertain whether I was part of some illicit infiltration network at RAND. (As I write this, it occurs to me that the person who helped me set up the web site did do some web design for some classified projects -- I can see where that would raise red flags.)

For me, working at RAND was like my reaction to the anti-war sloganeering. I didn't want to remain encircled in the same dogma, talking to the same people. I wanted to see what the mainstream policy world was all about. I had enormous respect for many of the researchers I worked with, and enjoyed spending time with quite a few coworkers. I savored contradiction.

In the end, as the war dragged on, it became more and more difficult to watch some of the supporters glued to the TV in the RAND hallway, taking pride in our preemptive war. I didn't like disturbing Air Force power points I would come across in the recycling bin. I left to work on my own ethical consumption and eco-design business.

I know that intelligence professionals have to follow leads that seem suspicious. In my case, however, all of the effort expended has been a huge waste of resources. I hope, as we move out of this period of unconstitutional abuses and politically-charged intelligence-gathering, that more nuanced understandings of ideology can prevail. The Homegrown Terrorism Bill seems poised to study "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" from very outmoded perspectives that will result in wasted taxpayer funds and harassed individuals -- not safer Americans.

It does still mystify me that someone like myself, who wanted to prevent senseless killing, is/was considered a threat, while the White House is full of individuals with contempt for the law.

~~