11 January 21
Donations Still Barely Trickling In
We are far behind even where we were last month, and a long way from where we need to be.
You’re not trying yet. If you do this will go like a breeze.
Need to get going.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
10 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Jill Lepore | What Should We Call the Sixth of January?
Jill Lepore, The New Yorker
Lepore writes: "Trump called the people who violently attacked and briefly seized the U.S. Capitol building in order to overturn a Presidential election 'patriots'; President-elect Joe Biden called them 'terrorists.'"
ig protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Donald Trump tweeted before Christmas. “Be there, will be wild!” On New Year’s Day, he tweeted again: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th.” On January 5th: “I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early—doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!” The posters called it the “Save America March.” What happened that day was big, and it was wild. If it began as a protest and a rally and a march, it ended as something altogether different. But what? Sedition, treason, a failed revolution, an attempted coup? And what will it be called, looking back? A day of anarchy? The end of America?
Trump called the people who violently attacked and briefly seized the U.S. Capitol building in order to overturn a Presidential election “patriots”; President-elect Joe Biden called them “terrorists.” In a section of “Leviathan” called “Inconstant Names,” Thomas Hobbes, in 1651, remarked that the names of things are variable, “For one man calleth Wisdome, what another calleth Feare; and one Cruelty, what another Justice.” On the other hand, sometimes one man is right (those people were terrorists). And, sometimes, what to call a thing seems plain. “This is what the President has caused today, this insurrection,” Mitt Romney, fleeing the Senate chamber, told a Times reporter.
By any reasonable definition of the word (including the Oxford English Dictionary’s: “The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority”), what happened on January 6th was an insurrection. An insurrection is, generally, damnable: calling a political action an insurrection is a way of denouncing what its participants mean to be a revolution. “There hath been in Rome strange insurrections,” Shakespeare wrote, in “Coriolanus.” “The people against the senators, patricians, and nobles.” Insurrection, in Shakespeare, is “foul,” “base and bloody.” In the United States, the language of insurrection has a vexed racial history. “Insurrection” was the term favored by slaveowners for the political actions taken by people held in human bondage seeking their freedom. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, charged the king with having “excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson, an opponent of slavery, once offered a toast “To the next insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies.” And Benjamin Franklin, wryly objecting to Southern politicians’ conception of human beings as animals, offered this rule to tell the difference between them: “sheep will never make any insurrections.”
The term’s racial inflection lasted well beyond the end of slavery. In the nineteen-sixties, law-and-order Republicans used that language to demean civil-rights protests, to describe a political movement as rampant criminality. “We have seen the gathering hate, we have heard the threats to burn and bomb and destroy,” Richard Nixon said, in 1968. “In Watts and Harlem and Detroit and Newark, we have had a foretaste of what the organizations of insurrection are planning for the summer ahead.” In that era, though, “riot” replaced “insurrection” as the go-to racial code word: “riots” were Black, “protests” were white, as Elizabeth Hinton argues in an essential, forthcoming book, “America on Fire: The Untold History of Police Violence and Black Rebellion Since the 1960s.” “Yet historically,” Hinton observes, “most instances of mass criminality have been perpetrated by white vigilantes hostile to integration and who joined together into roving mobs that took ‘justice’ in their own hands.” This remains an apt description of what happened on January 6th.
One possibility, then, is to call the Sixth of January a “race riot.” Its participants were overwhelmingly white; many were avowedly white supremacists. A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.”
What words will historians use in textbooks? Any formulation is a non-starter if it diminishes the culpability of people in positions of power who perpetrated the lie that the election was stolen. It’s not a coup d’etat because it didn’t succeed. It’s not even a failed coup, because a coup involves the military. And, as Naunihal Singh, the author of “Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups,” told Foreign Policy, the word “coup” lets too many people off the hook. “The people who you want to point fingers at are the president, the party leaders, and the street thugs,” Singh said. “And we lose that if we start talking about a coup; it gives a pass to all of the Republican politicians who have been endorsing what Trump’s saying.”
In truth, the language of the coop seems more appropriate than the language of the coup. I mean chickens. “Coming home to roost” quite aptly describes the arrival of armed terrorists in the hall where, moments before, Senator Ted Cruz had summoned that very flock as he stood on the floor and urged the legislature to overturn the election. Derrick Evans, the West Virginia Republican lawmaker who joined the mob and, as he breached the doors of the Capitol, cried out, “We’re in! We’re in!” acted with more honesty and consistency than the hundred and forty-seven members of the House and Senate who, later that night, voted to overturn the results of the election after having hidden, for hours, from the very people they’d been inciting for months and even years.
“Sedition” is too weak. Noah Webster, in his American Dictionary of the English Language, from 1828, offered this handy way to distinguish “sedition” from “insurrection”: “sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.” In any case, sedition in the sense of a political rebellion, is obsolete. “Treason,” an attempt to overthrow the government, seems fair, though it almost risks elevating what looked to be a shambles: a shabby, clownish, idiotic, and aimless act of mass vandalism. If I were picking the words, I’d want to steer very clear of ennobling it, so I’d be inclined to call it something blandly descriptive, like “The Attack on the U.S. Capitol,” or “The Sixth of January.”
“Remember this day forever!” Trump tweeted at one minute past six on Wednesday night. There’s no danger that anyone will forget it, by whatever name. The harder question is not what to call the events of that day, but what to make of the maddening four years and more that led up to it: the long, slow rot of the Republican Party; the perfidy of Republicans in the House and Senate since January, 2017; the wantonness of a conservative media willing to incite violence; the fecklessness of Twitter and Facebook; and, not least, the venality, criminality, and derangement of the President. Whether that story belongs under a chapter titled “The Rise and Fall of Donald J. Trump” or “The End of America” awaits the outcome of events.
The Capitol stands mostly quiet. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Capitol Police Chief Sund Has Stepped Down, Leaving Earlier Than Expected
Allison Klein, The Washington Post
Klein writes: "Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund stepped down from his post on Friday, days earlier than he said would following a deadly breach of the Capitol complex by a mob supporting President Trump."
Sund announced his resignation, effective Jan. 16, on Thursday, hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly called on him to step down over the department’s handling of the insurrection at the Capitol. But the Capitol Police website has been updated to say that Assistant Chief Yogananda D. Pittman took control of the agency on Friday.
During the melee, Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, a 12-year veteran, was injured while physically engaging the riotous mob. He died Thursday night. One of the people who breached the Capitol, Ashli Babbitt, was shot by a Capitol Police officer during the confrontation; three others died of medical emergencies, officials have said.
On Sunday, Capitol Police announced the death of another officer, Howard Liebengood, 51, who was off-duty when he died. Police did not release a cause or date of death of Liebengood, who had been with the department since April 2005.
But Liebengood was at the Capitol on Wednesday, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters. His death was a suicide, theses officials said.
Sund and his deputies did not request significant help from other law enforcement agencies in advance of the siege, which unfolded at the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers attempted to certify the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Nor did the department have enough of its own officers and fortifications — or a backup plan in place — to keep the mob out of the building.
When Sund resigned, he wrote a memo to members of the Capitol Police Board, which was reported by multiple news outlets as saying, in part: “I am respectfully submitting my letter of resignation, effective Sunday, January 16, 2021.”
The Capitol Police did not respond to a question from The Washington Post about why Sund left his position early.
Pittman has worked for the Capitol Police since 2001, initially providing security for senators and dignitaries, the agency’s website says. In 2006, she was promoted to sergeant, working in the communications division; she later she became a lieutenant and worked in the House division.
In 2012, Pittman was one of the first Black female supervisors to become a captain, according to the agency’s website. In that position, she led her unit in providing security for the 2013 presidential inauguration. In 2018, she was promoted to deputy chief.
Reporter Neil Sheehan, who broke the Pentagon Papers story, at the New York Times in 1971. (photo: Barton Silverman/New York Times/Redux/eyevine)
After 50 Years, the Pentagon Papers Give Up Their Final Secrets
Edward Helmore, Guardian UK
Helmore writes: "This week, a year after Sheehan's death at 84, the Pulitzer prize-winning author's account of how he obtained the report has finally come to light."
Journalist behind scoop reveals how he tricked whistleblower to get copies of explosive Vietnam war reports
t is to many the greatest journalistic scoop in a generation – the publication of a 7,000-page government report that laid bare how successive US administrations had escalated the Vietnam war while concealing doubts that the action could ever be successful.
That report – the Pentagon Papers – was made public in 1971 by the New York Times over legal objections by the Nixon administration. But the manner in which the documents had been obtained by Times reporter Neil Sheehan has always been a mystery.
This week, a year after Sheehan’s death at 84, the Pulitzer prize-winning author’s account of how he obtained the report has finally come to light. Over a four-hour interview in 2015 that he instructed should not be published while he was alive, Sheehan recounted how he had defied Daniel Ellsberg, a former defence department analyst, who had allowed him to read – but not copy – documents Ellsberg had illicitly copied while working at the Rand Corporation.
Instead, Sheehan smuggled the papers out of a flat in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Ellsberg had hidden them and took them to a copy-shop. He hid the duplicates in a bus-station locker initially.
“You had to do what I did,” Sheehan explained in an interview with the New York Times, describing Ellsberg as conflicted between releasing the documents and fearing for his liberty if he were revealed as their source. Ellsberg, Sheehan said, had repeatedly vacillated, knowing that if he turned them over, “he’d lose control.”
In his 2002 memoir, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg wrote that he was unsure that the Times would publish the documents in full, as he had wanted. Sheehan said he believed Ellsberg was “totally conflicted”.
“I was quite upset when Ellsberg said, ‘You can read, take notes, but no copies,’” Sheehan recalled. “He didn’t realise that I had decided: ‘This guy is just impossible. You can’t leave it in his hands. It’s too important and it’s too dangerous.’”
“Xerox it,” he remembered his wife, Susan Sheehan, a writer for the New Yorker, advising him. While Ellsberg was away, leaving him with a key to the flat, the couple began their task, checking into separate hotels under aliases, making copies, hiding them in a bus terminal locker and one at Boston’s Logan airport.
Ultimately, as the paper was readying the story for publication, Sheehan said he returned to Ellsberg to ask for the documents. This time Ellsberg consented, which the reporter took as consent to publish. “This was an exercise in giving Ellsberg some warning – if he remembered what he’d told me – and a bit of conscience-salving on my part,” Sheehan recalled. “Maybe it’s hypocritical, but we were going to go to press, and I wanted to try to give him some kind of warning.”
Still, the papers’ publication took Ellsberg by surprise. After his cover was blown as the source, the two ran into each other. Ellsberg, Sheehan said, was “unhappy over the monumental duplicity”.
The Nixon administration, which had sought an injunction on further publication, understood the import of the story. “Out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing… You can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment; and the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this,” White House chief of staff HR Haldeman told Nixon.
The administration lost the effort to prevent publication in a landmark ruling that is now seen as a cornerstone of press freedom. Nixon, however, went further in his campaign against the leaks and Ellsberg. White House staffers, under the supervision of John Ehrlichman, created a covert investigations unit, “the plumbers”, which would later lead to the Watergate burglaries and Nixon’s impeachment.
In his account, Sheehan said he’d never wanted to speak out about how he’d obtained the copies for fear of contradicting Ellsberg’s account of giving the papers or to embarrass the leaker with his reading of his state of mind.
Years later, Sheehan and Ellsberg reached an understanding. “So you stole it, like I did,” Sheehan recalled Ellsberg as saying. Sheehan said he responded that neither had stolen what was rightfully public property.
“I didn’t steal it. And neither did you. Those papers are the property of the people of the United States. They paid for them with their national treasure and the blood of their sons, and they have a right to it.”
Capitol police. (photo: Getty Images)
Here's How to Pardon-Proof the Cases Against the MAGA Rioters
Shan Wu, The Daily Beast
Wu writes: "While it's a no-brainer that the rioters committed federal crimes - they were on federal property assaulting federal officers - it's also a no-brainer that Trump has no qualms against pardoning those who commit violent crimes, including murder."
national joint effort of local, state and federal authorities is required to do justice in these cases.
The prosecutions of the Capitol rioters—including the person or persons who murdered Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick by bludgeoning him with a fire extinguisher—need to be immunized against Trump’s pardon power through joint local and federal prosecutions.
While it’s a no-brainer that the rioters committed federal crimes–they were on federal property assaulting federal officers—it’s also a no-brainer that Trump has no qualms against pardoning those who commit violent crimes, including murder. His recent pardon of the Blackwater contractors who had been convicted of murdering unarmed civilians in Iraq makes this plain.
But Trump’s pardon power extends only to federal crimes, which is why these cases need to be brought jointly with local jurisdictions like the District of Columbia, as well as nearby Virginia and Maryland, where many of the rioters may have been staying, as well as the home states of rioters farther away from D.C.
Serious crimes in D.C. are prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice via the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., which has unique primary jurisdiction for prosecuting local crimes there, from arrests of protesters to murder. But the investigations for these prosecutions are commonly done by D.C. MPD alone or working with federal law enforcement. Already, news reports indicate that the investigation into Sicknick’s murder is being worked by D.C. Homicide, the FBI, and Capitol Police. The investigation work being done now will yield witnesses and massive amounts of video evidence, all of which will be ultimately presented to a grand jury to bring indictments. And here is where it gets interesting.
Unlike most federal prosecutors, the U.S. Attorney in D.C. can bring cases in either federal or local courts and can utilize both federal criminal laws as well as local D.C. laws. So an early question for prosecutors will be whether to utilize a local or federal grand jury and whether to bring local or federal charges.
They should utilize a federal grand jury and bring both local and state charges. Bringing D.C. charges like murder, manslaughter, assault on a police officer will allow some legal defense against Trump’s ability to pardon the charges since some of them will arguably not be federal crimes but D.C. crimes. Like the ongoing investigations into Trump by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York state attorney general—cases which will survive any presidential pardons—well-constructed D.C. charges could also survive Trump’s abusive use of the federal pardon power.
But that survivability is not assured because even when criminal cases are brought under D.C. law, it is still the federal government prosecuting them. So this strategy—after likely being litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—might ultimately fail.
What will not fail, however, are pure local and state crimes brought by local and state prosecutors. Thus, the local D.C. Attorney General’s Office could bring charges such as weapons offenses and disorderly conduct while Virginia, Maryland, and maybe even the home states of the rioters could bring charges like conspiracy to riot, commit assault, destruction of property, assault, use of explosives and the like. Normally, such potentially redundant charges would not be a good use of D.C., state, and federal resources but this was not a “normal” event.
The assault on the Capitol on the very day that Congress was certifying the results of America’s national election was more than a breach of the Capitol building grounds. It was an assault on the heart of our democratic processes that destroyed symbols of our country and resulted in the deaths of five citizens. A national joint effort of local, state, and federal authorities is required to do justice in these cases—and to protect that justice from the abusive power of a president run amok.
Derrick Evans exiting the Sidney L. Christie US Courthouse and Federal Building after being arraigned on Friday. (photo: Sholten Singer/AP)
A West Virginia Republican Lawmaker Who Livestreamed Himself Storming The Capitol Has Resigned
Adolfo Flores, BuzzFeed News
Flores writes: "A West Virginia lawmaker who livestreamed himself storming the US Capitol resigned on Saturday after federal charges against him were announced."
Derrick Evans resigned after charges against him were announced by the Justice Department.
West Virginia lawmaker who livestreamed himself storming the US Capitol resigned on Saturday after federal charges against him were announced.
In his one-sentence letter to the governor, Derrick Evans, who was recently elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates, said he resigned effective immediately.
In a statement about his resignation, Evans described the past few days as "a difficult time" for his family, colleagues, and himself.
"I feel it’s best at this point to resign my seat in the House and focus on my personal situation and those I love," he said. "I take full responsibility for my actions, and deeply regret any hurt, pain or embarrassment I may have caused my family, friends, constituents and fellow West Virginians."
His resignation came shortly after the Department of Justice announced that he is being charged with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
Evans was taken into custody Friday, the department said.
In a now-deleted livestream on his Facebook, Evans is seen crossing the threshold of the doorway into the US Capitol and shouting, “We’re in, we’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!”
In the criminal complaint affidavit, prosecutors listed memes that Evans posted online as “potentially relevant” to his motive and intent, including one with the text “TAKE AMERICA BACK. BE THERE. WILL BE WILD. D.C., JANUARY 6, 2021”
The affidavit also stated that prior to his livestream, Evans posted videos on Facebook of the crowd outside the Capitol building. In one of those videos, he says, "They're making an announcement right now saying if Pence betrays us you better get your mind right because we're storming the building," then laughs and adds, "I'm just the messenger."
His Facebook account has since been removed.
On Thursday, his attorney John Bryan, said Evans would not be resigning from public office and maintained that his client was innocent until proven guilty.
"He committed no criminal act that day," said Bryan in a statement. "To the contrary, he was exercising his constitutionally protected rights to engage in peaceful protest and to film the events which were unfolding."
Bryan could not be immediately reached for comment.
Evans was not the only lawmaker to attend the rally that quickly turned into a riot on Wednesday. Among them was Virginia state senator and Republican gubernatorial candidate, Amanda Chase, who spoke to the crowd of Trump supporters in Washington, DC, before they stormed the Capitol.
Chase, like other lawmakers who attended, said she left before the mob forced their way to the Capitol. Chase is facing calls to resign.
"I was honored to speak at the morning rally in DC in support of our President and in favor of ensuring that every legal vote matters," said Chase in a Facebook post.
Protests which erupted last October sprung Japarov from jail to the prime minister's chair and culminated in him assuming the interim presidency before he ran for the permanent role. (photo: Vladimir Pirogov/Reuters)
Right-Wing Japarov on Course for Landslide Victory in Kyrgyzstan Election
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "Nationalist politician Sadyr Japarov is on course to a landslide victory in Kyrgyzstan's snap presidential election, which was triggered by the collapse of the previous government."
Preliminary results show nationalist Sadyr Japarov, 52, won almost 80 percent of the vote, avoiding a runoff.
Japarov won almost 80 percent of the vote on Sunday in the Central Asian nation which is closely allied with Russia, according to preliminary results cited by Kyrgyzstan’s Central Election Commission, meaning there will be no runoff.
The data meanwhile showed his closest competitor trailing with less than 7 percent.
More than 80 percent of voters have also supported a proposal to reform the constitution to give the president greater powers at parliament’s expense, the commission said.
Just more than 10 percent supported the parliamentarian rule.
The referendum vote spells the end for a mixed political system adopted in 2010 to tame authoritarianism after two successive strongman presidents were ejected from power during street protests.
Violent protests which erupted last October sprung Japarov, 52, from jail to the prime minister’s chair and culminated in him assuming the interim presidency before he ran for the full-time role.
Japarov, who was sentenced to a lengthy prison term for kidnapping a provincial governor as part of a protest, had his verdict quashed amid the October unrest and has outspent 16 presidential poll rivals by a wide margin.
Russia a ‘strategic partner’
Despite his nationalist stance – Japarov’s first act as prime minister was to add ethnicity information to national ID cards – he has repeatedly pledged to maintain a close relationship with former Soviet overlord Moscow.
“Russia is our strategic partner,” Japarov said after casting his ballot in a suburb of capital Bishkek, and urged all groups to accept the results in order to preserve stability.
Russia operates a military airbase in the mountainous nation and is the main destination for hundreds of thousands of Kyrgyz migrant labourers.
Neighbouring China is another key trade partner and investor in the impoverished and predominantly Muslim nation, whose economy has been battered by the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting disruptions to trade and travel.
Japarov’s prison sentence stems from his campaign in the early 2010s to nationalise the giant Kumtor gold mine operated by Canada’s Centerra Gold. After coming to power last year, however, he said that was no longer a goal and he would only seek to ensure profits are split fairly.
Japarov’s campaign, which combined references to traditional symbols and values with promises such as doubling healthcare spending struck a chord with voters, especially in rural areas.
Before toppling the government of President Sooronbay Jeenbekov in October, similar violent protests deposed presidents in 2010 and 2005. Another former head of state, Almazbek Atambayev, is under arrest on corruption charges.
Protesters earlier on Sunday denounced Japarov’s plan to change the constitution, which opponents say will put the country on a path to authoritarianism.
“I’m here to show my support for the constitution, the rule of law and parliamentarism,” said Aizhamal Bektenova, 23.
“I’m against what is happening in my country. It is a usurpation of power, disrespect towards the law. People came here in protest against the corrupt leadership that wants to take the power away from the people,” she added.
However, others believe Japarov is Kyrgyzstan’s last hope.
“I feel sorry for Japarov,” said supporter Uliijan, 46.
“Already now the parliament is constantly criticising him. They will not leave him in peace. I hope he will fulfil his promises. Probably not all of them but at least some. It will already be a lot.”
Stratford said the economy is in a desperate need of investment, as more than 2 million Kyrgyz are forced to work abroad due to a lack of employment opportunities at home.
“[It is a] very controversial election and win … there is a lot for Sadyr Japarov to do in the coming years,” Stratford said.
Buy nothing groups are on the rise. (photo: The Good Brigade/DigitalVision/Getty Images)
The 'Buy Nothing' Groups on Facebook Are What Humanity Needs Right Now
Foram Mehta, The Bold Italic
Mehta writes: "Neighbors can give freely and ask for what they need. Perhaps most importantly, because the groups transcend class and socioeconomic structures that typically separate people in a cash economy, they facilitate mutual aid and friendships with people who'd otherwise remain strangers."
You could argue the project exemplifies the best of a socialist society — but we won’t get political
t started with an old vacuum. Less-than-perfect, but otherwise fully functioning, I needed to get rid of it. In the past, I would’ve defaulted to selling it on Craigslist or apps like OfferUp for whatever few dollars it was worth. But having been blessed with a new, state-of-the-art vacuum for free, I was eager to pay it forward by gifting it to someone.
I turned to my Buy Nothing (San Francisco) group on Facebook, an unofficial local chapter of the official Buy Nothing Project. Founded in 2013 by Rebecca Rockefeller and Liesl Clark, the Buy Nothing Project began as an experimental hyper-local gift economy on Bainbridge Island, Washington. It has since become nothing short of a global movement, with thousands of groups in 30 countries. There are both official groups that adhere to the same principles, and more unofficial ones inspirited by the original idea like the one I joined.
In no time, multiple people expressed interest. A public school teacher and a mom with a family to support — both equally deserving. I chose the first person in line. After, I had this nagging feeling that I could give away more. I could easily think of a handful of items that my husband and I were sitting on that had no value to us solely because they were collecting dust in a closet. I could think of another handful we’d reserved for “a rainy day,” but realistically would never use.
Giving them away to someone who might need — and, importantly, use — them felt not only liberating but dutiful. So I listed and subsequently gave away an eight-piece comforter set, two pairs of brand new shoes, a record player, an ice cream maker that was missing a replaceable part, a lunch bag, even bubble wrap. One by one, every item found a new home. And, best of all, I found community.
It’s clear others feel the same — Buy Nothing has skyrocketed in popularity and participation. Hundreds of thousands of items that would have sat in basements or gone to the dump are now in better hands.
“We’re a one-income family, and we’ve given and received probably thousands of dollars worth of temporary items,” says one of my neighbors Rebecca Slater, an elementary school teacher, who’s been in the Buy Nothing NOPA group for four years. “I was able to decorate our wedding, clothe both of my children, and my pregnant self, get furniture that would only be used temporarily, receive single items without having to buy a whole set, and then redistribute all of these things.”
Getting what you need, or even just what you’d love to have, is also possible without spending a dime or putting yourself at risk for Covid-19 exposure. Today, contactless pickups are the norm in Buy Nothing groups, and members ask for everything from expensive electronics for their kids’ distance learning to treadmills so they can exercise safely at home. No request is too little and none too big. I’ve asked for and received everyday items like ice cube trays, decades-old aloe cuttings, and a teapot to more esoteric things like a Sonicare toothbrush sanitizer/charger.
The added bonus is for the environment: The gift economy rehomes items otherwise destined for landfills while simultaneously preventing additional waste generated by a capitalist society.
“[Buy Nothing] doesn’t advertise themselves as a zero-waste group, but they align with those values so closely,” adds Natalie Calhoun, an MBA student and a member of the Buy Nothing Richmond District group, who says she’s received exercise equipment and food in the few months she’s been a member. “I so appreciate having the opportunity to keep items out of the landfill and reusing them over and over again.”
Slater’s and Calhoun’s experiences aren’t anomalies. The way people openly share and give away things so readily, you could even argue the Buy Nothing Project exemplifies the best of a socialist society — but we won’t get political.
It’s not uncommon for expensive items to show up on Buy Nothing. You might see anything from iPads and treadmills to barbecue grills and gold jewelry on an average day. My most impressive acquisition to date is the mid-century piano I claimed two weeks ago. It’s something I never imagined owning given that I didn’t play. But I’m now fulfilling my lifelong dream of learning piano, and I’m still pinching myself that a neighbor could be so generous to simply give it away.
The bonds people form in these gift economies can’t be understated. It’s common for neighbors to become friends, to lean on each other for future support, and continue to do exchanges. I’ve been fortunate enough to give back to neighbors who’ve given to me and vice versa. For some, these relationships have revived an age of neighborliness that’s been lost since June Cleaver’s time.
“It’s taken the ‘borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbor’ concept into the 21st century,” says Clarissa Sidhom of Modern Hipster Mama, who’s been a member of the Buy Nothing Vancouver, Washington, group for more than three years and served as an admin for two years.
“I’ve gotten to meet neighbors and have become friends with them through this group,” adds Melanie Musson, an insurance writer who’s been a member of the Buy Nothing Belgrade group for three years. “After meeting through this group, I’ve even reached out to them personally to use a teaspoon of this or that when I’m in the middle of cooking dinner and realized I’m missing an ingredient.”
“The Buy Nothing group makes the city feel like a neighborhood,” says Slater. “Because of Buy Nothing I have been given the opportunity to meaningfully help families in need on their terms and form friendly acquaintances. It is a big reason why city life feels much less isolating.”
The kindness you’ll find in a Buy Nothing group, official or not, is contagious. It’s inspired me not only to give away things I don’t need, but also to help fulfill people’s needs proactively. Because I know that in a time of need, I can always turn to my community for support. And that is something you can’t buy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.