Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: WHY shut down the port in Oakland? For what purpose? What was the statement? What message does it send, and to whom?

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 1:17 p.m. EST by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What exactly is it that I'm supposed to support, about closing down the port in Oakland?

I live near the port of Miami, would this movement like to shut down that port as well? WHY?

What's next, airports? Border crossings? What is the purpose of this, other than anarchy? The only reason that seems to make any sense for WHY the protesters shut down the port is that they wanted to see if they could do it. Was there some other reason, that I should support?

If a bunch of striking longshoremen shut down the port, then that would make some sense. But how does it make sense for people who don't work at the port to shut down the port? Who was harmed by that, other than a bunch of 99%ers who drive trucks and operate cranes?

Has the movement been co-opted by anarchists without anybody even noticing?

296 Comments

296 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

"Because there was no clearly articulated message (or else I wouldn't have spent all day here yesterday asking for somebody to tell me what was the message) the actual message that the average American got from all of that was that a riot can potentially shut down bridges and ports, can cost workers money, and can hold up people in traffic and keep them from getting home to their families. The guys breaking store windows spoke far more loudly than anybody talking about the power of the 99% or anything like that. People in red states didn't see themselves in that protest when they watched television and saw "STRIKE" painted across a health food store. They saw something that looked threatening and dangerous.

The Occupy movement avoided picking specific issues or specific positions on issues for a very long time, out of fear of alienating people. The anarchists have now successfully forced issues, which is now alienating people, and the polarization for-or-against the Occupy movement will deepen.

Law-and-order conservatives now have something solid to use against the movement on right-wing media outlets like Fox News. The anarchists have succeeded in appointing themselves as PR reps for the Occupy movement. A guy with a baseball bat and a bandana over his face is the new Ketchup. The new spokesman for the Occupy movement."

I think you're being a little doom and gloomy. If you look at the news today, you'll see that Occupy Oakland has made it clear that they disavow any involvement with these anarchists. Ultimately, you can't control who shows up at your protests, and in California, we can't control teenagers in black. But I've already explained that shutting down the port was a display of what we are capable of, that we can massively interrupt the flow of business. You read it differently, and I can't change the way you see it. I can only explain how things look from my POV and from the POV of many people who are actually here. And no one thinks the shutdown was a riot. Everyone agrees that the protest was peaceful until around midnight.

As far as red states go, I think it's safe to say that it makes no difference, no difference at all, which tactics we choose--staunch conservatives in those states aren't going to agree with us out of principle. They are set on disagreeing with progressives, no matter what. But progressives and people on the fence in those states are smarter and more open-minded than you give them credit for.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I think that we're looking at it in exactly the same way when we both see that the whole point was that the protesters just wanted to see if they could "massively interrupt the flow of business". Where we differ is that you apparently consider it a good thing to interrupt the economy. Do you think that the rest of the 99% sees it that way?

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Of course not, but a) a lot of people do, and b) it takes a long time to win others over. Maybe we'll accomplish that, maybe we won't. I can't predict how people will react; I only have my intuition. You could make a strong argument that my intuition is wrong, and I wouldn't disagree with you.

[-] 2 points by Levels (73) 3 years ago

Maybe all the foreign crap sold by walmart? Just a guess.

[-] 1 points by lisa (425) 3 years ago

The Chinese imports are only a symptom of the other problems. Lack of manufacturing jobs in America, lack of living wages so people are forced to shop at Walmart and leave their conscience in the parking lot. Barricading the ports does not solve the problems of why the stuff is imported. Greedy realtors, unaffordable housing necessitating jobs having to pay more are two things that drove the manufacturing jobs out of this country over to China. Those issues must be acknowledged and addressed and changed. So it is not just the cheap goods coming into port ending up at Walmart.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

So then the movement has been co-opted by the anarchists who used anti-globalization as an excuse to riot in Seattle, and who used the Stanley Cup as an excuse to riot in Vancouver?

The news that I'm reading talks about how most businesses in Oakland didn't close for the strike, but that thousands of protesters filtered in from all over the Bay Area to participate in shutting down Oakland's port.

The movement wants to make it seem like Oakland is rising up in protest, but my perception is that Oakland was invaded by opportunistic anarchists looking for an excuse to vandalize property and cause a disruption.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I find it amazing that Occupy is attempting an even-larger shipping port shutdown today, when nobody could really answer WHY the last time, after I spent a day asking the question over and over.

During the course of this thread, I found the original justification for the shutdown of the Port of Oakland. None of the answers in this thread had anything to do with that justification. But it wasn't difficult for all of the people who responded here to come up with rationalizations for this kind of vaguely anti-authoritarian civil disobedience.

The baffling, and disappointing thing about all of this, is that it doesn't seem to concern anybody that the objectives and justification have not been thought through. It doesn't concern any of the people participating today that people are acting before thinking. Burning a lot of effort and investing a lot of time in something with no clear objective or justification doesn't concern anybody? That's unbelievably disappointing.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

"At 6:15 p.m., the Port of Oakland closed and was reopened this morning at 11 a.m. According to field reports, there were no injuries, no property damage, and no major security breeches, said Robert Bernardo, the manager of media and public relations for the Port. An estimated 11,000 workers lost wages as a result of the port closure, which is normally open 24 hours. The economic impact of the closure was also severe, and an estimated $4 million in revenue was lost as a result of the 12-hour closure."

http://oaklandnorth.net/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-strike-was-primarily-peaceful-city-administrators-office/

Way to go OWS! Kick a struggling port when it's down.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

11,000 workers lost wages. That's the first time that I've seen that number.

I finally located Occupy Oakland's official explanation for WHY:

Blockade Port of Oakland During Nov 2 General Strike

October 29, 2011 in Front Page, general strike

resolution passed unanimously by the Occupy Oakland strike assembly on Friday October 29

On Wednesday, November 2nd as part of the Oakland General Strike, we will march on the Port of Oakland and shut it down. We will converge at 5pm at 14th and Broadway and march to the port to shut it down before the 7pm night shift.

We are doing this in order to blockade the flow of capital on the day of the General Strike, as well as to show our commitment to solidarity with Longshore workers in their struggle against EGT in Longview, Washington. EGT is an international grain exporter which is attempting to rupture longshore jurisdiction. The driving force behind EGT is Bunge LTD, a leading agribusiness and food company which reported 2.4 billion dollars in profit in 2010; this company has strong ties to Wall Street. This is but one example of Wall Street’s corporate attack on workers.

The Oakland General Strike will demonstrate the wide reaching implications of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The entire world is fed up with the huge disparity of wealth caused by the present system. Now is the time that the people are doing something about it.The Oakland General Strike is a warning shot to the 1% – their wealth only exists because the 99% creates it for them.

http://www.occupyoakland.org/2011/10/blockade-port-of-oakland-during-nov-2-general-strike/

In order to show "commitment to solidarity", the protesters in Oakland forced 11,000 port workers to lose wages, in solidarity with some kind of labor dispute 700 miles away.

Is this not clear evidence that the Occupy movement was co-opted this week, and orchestrated into closing the Port of Oakland by a special-interest group?!?

[-] 1 points by ton (2) 3 years ago

I agree with others here I too am baffled at what they think they succeeded by doing this. In fact I am baffled by much of what they seem to believe. A bunch of misguided anger, and jealousy really. Not sure where they got their misguided ideas.

[-] 1 points by ton (2) 3 years ago

I agree with others here I too am baffled at what they think they succeeded by doing this. In fact I am baffled by much of what they seem to believe. A bunch of misguided anger, and jealousy really. Not sure where they got their misguided ideas.

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 3 years ago

It only slightly affected some exports, so basically they fucked over a handful of American manufacturers.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The corporations doing the importing and manufacturing aren't going to be harmed that much by a day of interruption. But low-income workers trying to feed their families who are living paycheck to paycheck don't have that kind of flexibility. By searching for rationalizations to justify that hooliganism at the Port of Oakland this week, people involved in this movement are demonstrating that they care a lot more about demonstrating than they do about the plight of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 3 years ago

My response would have been appropriate-55 grains @ 3250 fps

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

This is terrible. I can't believe some of you are defending it too. These people obviously aren't the 1% and need to make money to live. I'm sure they want to join the movement when some spoiled whiney people are making them miss work. Oh, and maybe you guys can smash some more windows to get your point across and win more followers. OWS is a joke.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, the responses in this thread have been astonishing, and disappointing.

Two separate things happened this week:

1) A bunch of anarchists cost a bunch of workers their paychecks while selfishly creating a disruption just for fun, in the name of the Occupy movement.

2) The Occupy movement failed to question the wisdom or productiveness of what happened. Which is, by default, approval.

The second part is more disappointing than the first.

[-] 1 points by entrepreneur (69) 3 years ago

Short Answer: The intention is not to affect shipping industry but to raise awareness in media that occupy protesters and their demands be known to general public, as the media has been hiding the message from protesters or not projecting true message from protesters and making jokes of protesters.

Long Answer: The occupy protest is not against any oakland port or shipping industry in general. Since the occupy wallstreet protests started over a month back media is not adequately covering occupy protests and I have personally surveyed the people and found many are still not aware that protest exists , and some who know protest exist don't know why they exists. The general strike in oakland was covered by local tv (ABC 7) and others like KRON4. This is first time some awareness was raised to general public. If the strike would not close the oakland port , there would not be enough media attention and closing the port was symbolic in nature to show the seriousness and strength of protestors and to move the city and other governments to think seriously or make them act.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 3 years ago

Handful of Violent Rioters Don’t Represent “Occupy” Protests

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/handful-of-violent-rioters-dont-represent-occupy-protests.html

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Nobody represents the Occupy protests. And so the anarchists do, now, by default. Since nobody else does.

[-] 1 points by arealpolitik (154) 3 years ago

Radical actions are not the answer. If we have learned nothing else over the last 300 years, we have learned that mass 'peaceful' demonstrations work. Riots, disruption and violent confrontation do not. It gives the government an excuse to step in.

Shutting down anything is not necessary. What was needed and is still needed is an organized march on Washington and the do-nothing congress. A march so big it forces politicians to take notice. Let them shoot at us, beat us, and lock us up...

When five to ten million protesters show up, we will win...

Organize... Get every occupy chapter to meet in Washington DC. Be prepared to stay indefinitely. Call for a national strike on the same day so all workers and supporters can emphasize the point.

Violence will not work... a peaceful protest by millions concentrated in one area will.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Concentrated in one area and focused on one clear message.

[-] 1 points by arealpolitik (154) 3 years ago

Agreed... Need to start an organization thread. See who agrees with taking the next step.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Many have tried. Many have failed. The "horizontal, direct-democracy" anarchists who don't want the movement to become organized are winning, because they're working with nature instead of against it. The tendency of any mob is to descend into chaos, not to become organized. Trying to organize a mob is to fight against nature, and it requires a lot of skill and effort and energy from leaders. If this movement's only real ideal is to eschew leadership in any form, then the anarchists and nihilists will always keep winning. This isn't some kind of hypothesis that I'm making up, this is a fundamental law of nature.

[-] 1 points by arealpolitik (154) 3 years ago

Agreed, where are the patriots? Where are the leaders?

We need a leader who is not politically motivated or can be influenced by monetary gain.

[-] 1 points by Cayce (83) 3 years ago

I did not organize this act. I did not take part in it. I do see how some would think it was a good idea, and in the end, it does bring attention from government and the 1%, however;

I would not suggest this. I would have turned it down. There are a few places I would have people occupy and a few seemingly meaningless things I would have people do that all tied together in a bigger plan to achieve a goal.

This was more of a "Does anyone have any good ideas?"... "Let's shut down the port!".... "YEAH!!!",

There needs to be more organization. There needs to be structure. There needs to be clear set goals, and there needs to be funding. I have many ideas, but unfortunately, I am not employed with the non-profit.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What it reminds me of is the underwear gnomes from South Park. If you don't remember that one, this was their plan:

  1. Collect underwear
  2. ...
  3. PROFIT!!

The Occupy Oakland version:

  1. SHUT DOWN THE PORT!! SHUT DOWN BRIDGES!!
  2. ...
  3. SUCCESS!!

The problem is that they have no idea what "success" is, and the connection between step 1 and step 3 is so blurry that step 2 is just a question mark. Just like the underwear gnomes.

[-] 1 points by Cayce (83) 3 years ago

Good comparison.

[-] 1 points by angelofmercy (225) 3 years ago

Tech I tried to tell these people that this would happen. That they could not police themselves to keep people from becoming violent. That not everyone shared their same views , and morals. You look at history , you read the comments here.It wasn't hard to see where this was going.

Look at this site at the bottom ," this site was brought to you by various radicals" Look on the front page of this site , "the only solution is WorldRevolution"

You look up the word Revolution, what do you find ? A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.

Sorry Tech is you thought this movement was going to better this country. All I can say is prepare for the worst. Because Oakland , was just the beginning of this ugly monster.

Whats even more sad that these people can't even see that they put each city at risk for a terrorist attack. If anarchists can't be stopped by the protesters , you think they could keep some terrorist from doing something far worse ? Much less keep one from mingling among them.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I haven't really wanted to bring up the "T" word because I don't want to seem like the Bush Administration, going around calling anybody they didn't like a "terrorist". But the anniversary of 9/11 was right before the start of this protest, and Zuccotti Park is like a block from Ground Zero. Now people are manipulating the movement to orchestrate the shut-down of ports, bridges. Isn't shutting down ports and bridges the kind of thing that we spent a decade afraid that the terrorists would do? Will attacking more "targets of opportunity" and sabotaging more infrastructure somehow win over the support of more Americans?

Have you ever heard about the allegations from the Jester that LulzSec was run by Palestinian militants?

Considering what happened in Oakland, I laugh when I think back to the posts on this site from people who were outraged at the idea that the Oakland PD was conducting undercover surveillance of the Occupy Oakland protesters. Look at what they did. Of course the cops are going to treat this group like suspects. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs. If the Occupy movement continues to be manipulated into sabotaging public infrastructure then the average American is going to feel strongly about wanting law enforcement to keep the movement contained.

Trying to convince people to be afraid of Wall Street financial institutions when you're camping out a block from Ground Zero and acting like a terrorist is not going to work. People are more afraid of terrorists.

[-] 1 points by angelofmercy (225) 3 years ago

I don't like using the T word either. As you write , shutting down a port does sound like something one would do. As far as continuing to win more support from American with that type of behavior. At this point I don't know. Then again it may attract Americans and so on , that hate America. As far as the LulzSec I remember reading about it at some point.

I too laugh when I have read comments like that about undercover surveillance. California has a history of riots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ At this point it would be wouldn't crazy to think that every march they did , could and would result in property damage , or maybe something worse.

I have to agree with you on . People are more afraid of terrorists.

[-] 1 points by BizEducatedSociallyConscious (68) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Supervisors asked them not to strike but the workers, on their own accord, chose to not work in protest and solidarity. When injustice happens, you cannot predict how people will react. People will sometimes react irrationally.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

No, a bunch of protesters forcibly blocked the port entrance and prevented truck drivers and longshoremen from unloading container ships. The Port of Oakland wasn't shut down because the workers there went on strike. It was shut down because the port was invaded by protesters aimed at keeping the workers from doing their jobs. People missed shifts and lost money, thanks to the protest.

[-] 1 points by BizEducatedSociallyConscious (68) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Oh, sorry, didn't catch that. I do try to keep up.

But the news report I heard of workers VOLUNTARILY not reporting to work when their supervisors asked them to was false?

I would think both are true.

Personally, I'm with you and would not agree and support such actions. But honestly, I would also not strongly protest such actions. I would expect officials to deal with the mess, consider the grievances, and would urge protesters to very carefully choose their tactics and always remain peaceful. Honestly, I am more outraged at police brutality. If I want to peacefully assemble (as I was honored to do in Times Square) I would not want the police to unjustly attack me. I am an ordinary citizen, professional, business owner, educated, moral, responsible, clean-cut, etc, etc. The rally was ABSOLUTELY peaceful and really quite beautiful to see so many optimistic, caring, determined people of all walks of life. I will NEVER forget a number of elderly people looking around at the crowd gleaming with joy and hope in their eyes taking it all in. It was one of the most beautifully democratic experiences I have ever had. YET the police were somewhat excessive, it seemed they were almost instigating unrest. It just did not make sense and was odd to witness. It definitely seemed that there were "strings" behind the excessive police force when PEOPLE, REAL PEOPLE, were peacefully and beautifully expressing their dissatisfaction with current conditions and demanding to be HEARD. No, I was not in Oakland but saw many videos. While some of the crowd did not appear as orderly, peaceful and respectful as they should have been, the police tactics were simply too much and not acceptable.

So, while I am in principle on your side and agree, the HUGELY unjust causes instigating this righteous protest and the too often unjust oppression against the protests makes me reluctantly side with the demonstrators. From all I have seen, there are a few bad apples but the MAJORITY are caring peaceful people sacrificing so much to initiate positive change for all of us. I remain hopeful it will remain peaceful and that desperate, counter-productive measures will not be excessive. And for any forces who attempt to PLANT such instances thinking that "conservative" people will turn on this movement...guess again! The anger is too deep and too real for Americans to be fooled and bamboozled, again.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Shutting down the port was a strategic act to disrupt Oakland business and to make a statement: we can gather enough power to screw you up. No workers were harmed. No one lost their paycheck for the day. Instead, many Bay Area companies had some delayed shipments. Calm down. The act was symbolic.

Look, what are we fighting here? Corporations, right? We're fighting corrupt corporate policies and the government that allows, even accommodates them. The only way we can effect change is by forcing them to recognize that we have some power over how they operate. That requires strikes and boycotts, massive interruptions of business. During the Civil Rights movement, you could have asked what boycotting the buses does, what staging a sit-in a restaurant does. Well, technically, it doesn't do anything but interrupt business. But it sends a powerful message.

I mean, what would you suggest we do? What tactics do you think this movement should be using?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

First, please realize that shutting down the port did cost workers money.

[Isaac Kos-Read, director of external affairs at the port] said that the demonstration prevented longshoremen from working the second and third shifts, and continued disruption to port operations will hurt employees and the already struggling economy. "Any additional missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region," Kos-Read said. "Continued disruptions will begin to lead to re-routing of cargo and permanent loss of jobs, a situation that would only exacerbate the on-going economic challenges of our region."

http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19255290

Second, you can look at the Tea Party as a role model. They're a movement that started out as a vague and nebulous protest movement, then congealed around specific ideas, then focused on and articulated those ideas clearly, then found candidates to represent them, then elected those candidates, and through all of that they successfully made government more responsive to their concerns.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

[-] 1 points by timisgood (7) from Temecula, CA 3 years ago

The Oakland port is the 5th largest port in American, it is the number one port for the import of Chinese made goods. That is exactly why it was shut down. The whole idea behind the movement is to equalize the distribution of money right? I believe the protestors saw this port as a source for a mass amount of income for the corporations who basically steal from our country.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 3 years ago

it's also one of the largest export ports...

you know, exporting things made in america to other countries to earn a living...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That almost makes sense, except that the movement has done a very poor job of articulating any kind of message about Chinese imports. And in fact, before the Port of Oakland shutdown, I don't remember globalization or Chinese imports being big concerns among many people here. That seems to be a rationalization that cropped up after shutting down the port.

[-] 1 points by timisgood (7) from Temecula, CA 3 years ago

The sad thing is, you are probably 100% correct. The movement seems to need a revamp, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It seems to me the movement is just thousands of people running around out there ranting about what they don't want, but can't seem to figure out what they do want.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, and meanwhile, the opponents of the ideas of this movement are working diligently and effectively, in a focused way, toward specific objectives. Right now they're working to keep your vote from counting, so that they can accumulate even more political power. Because they know how to use the political system that we have now, instead of making sparkle fingers in parks and fantasizing about utopia.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

[-] 1 points by lefty48197 (28) 3 years ago

They should have shut down the port in Long Beach. That's where all the products produced by Chinese slaves are unloaded before being distributed to Walmart's across the land.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

This is not an anti-globalization movement. Or is it, now?

[-] 1 points by lefty48197 (28) 3 years ago

It's an anti corporate whoring of America movement. The retailers have sent all of our manufacturing jobs to China all in the name of increasing corporate profits. In short: What's good for corporations is terribly bad for Americans.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Ah and so by that logic, what's bad for corporations is good for Americans. And therefore harming any corporation is justified.

Am I on track here? I'm just trying to understand.

[-] 1 points by AnonymousMuadDib (26) 3 years ago

Take on the Higher education bubble, student loan bubble, GoldmanSachs, and the federal Reserve all at the same time. Occupy the Art Institutes on Nov 5 in solidarity with south Florida.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130962100345051

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=278790262155872

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 3 years ago

The easiest way to block the port is buy local! Support local organic foods.

[-] 1 points by AnonymousMuadDib (26) 3 years ago

Take on the Higher education bubble, student loan bubble, GoldmanSachs, and the federal Reserve all at the same time. Occupy the Art Institutes on Nov 5 in solidarity with south Florida.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130962100345051

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=278790262155872

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What does a shipping container port have to do with any of that?

[-] 1 points by tritone (36) 3 years ago

It seems that the Port of Oakland has a more understanding view of the protesters: http://www.portofoakland.com/ "We at the Port of Oakland understand the frustrations and issues at the heart of the Occupy movement: We have over $1.4 billion in debt and annual debt service payments of over $100 million a year for the foreseeable future, constraining the jobs we can create and investments we can make. Economic conditions at the Port have forced us to reduce our workforce by 40% over the last seven years. Air passenger volume is down over 30% since 2008. We are operating at just over 50% capacity at our seaport, while there is increasing competition from alternative shipping gateways around the country and the world."

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Did you read the rest of it?

Despite these challenges, Port activity generates over 73,000 jobs in the region, and every day we work to create more jobs. From our maintenance staff, to our custodial workers, our truckers, to office workers and dock workers, the Port is where the 99% work. It is essential for the economic development of the City and region that the perception and reality of Oakland is stability, safety, and inclusion.

They were trying to point out before the protest that you were only going to harm the 99% by targeting the port.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

And it did. Who decided the port or Whole Foods was an appropriate target? I love the idea in NY of marching on Goldman-Sachs. You don't have anything but little guys to pick on in Oakland? Find a Fannie Mae or Bank of America branch.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 3 years ago

people stay cooool please

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

the corporations that depend on shipping their merchandise are hurt thats who. and thats who we have to hurt in order to get any thing changed.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

No, the longshoremen and the truck drivers at the Port of Oakland are who was hurt. The shipping containers at the port are going to get to their destinations a few hours late, but those workers lost a day of pay thanks to the Occupy movement. Net result: harm to the 99%. Congratulations on that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 3 years ago

degrowth,. permaculture.

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." -Mario Savio

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The difference here is that Mario Savio was protesting with a clear message that had a specific intended recipient, about a specific issue. The Occupy movement has no clear message, shutting down the Port of Oakland didn't send any clear statement to any specific intended recipient, and the Occupy movement can't even select specific issues, much less adopt positions on those issues. Without those things, the movement appears to be all about protesting for the sake of protesting. Shutting down the port for the sake of shutting down the port. To cause a disruption. For fun. Not for any social cause, but just to riot.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 3 years ago

sorry, you don't get it,. the movement is quite clear to many people, with minds and souls,. .

"indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

This is an all inclusive statement,. the whole corrupt system,. simple isn't it.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The message is vague anti-establishment sentiments, aimed at any kind of authority or institution? That's anarchism. 99% of Americans are not with you on that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 3 years ago

the current political system is corrupted by money,. the 1% have the vast majority of the wealth,. and they are taking more each day,. we are standing up to the system that maintains this,. how is this confusing to you??

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Okay I understand you and that's what I suspected. You've got a vague sense of anti-establishment sentiment, and any large institution is a valid target in your mind. The cops, the port, Whole Foods, any bank, etc. I understand. Anarchists, aimed at disrupting and destabilizing society.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 3 years ago

the system of corporate/banker control is not society, and you know it,. you are trolling.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I am not trolling, I've been trying to find out what the justification was for attacking infrastructure. There was none, other than just the fun of causing a disruption. If any corporation or institution can be classified a target because it represents "the system of corporate/banker control", then this movement is aimed at destabilizing society, in general. Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center because in their minds, the buildings represented the system of American dominance, and the people who died were just collateral damage. They use the same rationalization when they bomb night clubs or attempt to blow up airliners, or when they try to attack infrastructure like shipping ports. They thinks that any attack against any American target is justified, because any American represents imperialism to them. If any corporation or institution represents injustice in your mind and you're willing to use that as a rationalization for sabotage and vandalism of "targets of opportunity", and you think that the workers who are harmed are just collateral damage, then you're not much different.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 3 years ago

provocateurs aside,. "sabotage and vandalism" was not the aim,. a general strike was,. you know this.

"and you think that the workers who are harmed are just collateral damage" how are workers harmed in a general strike??

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The longshoremen and truck drivers at the Port of Oakland lost money because of the protest. Not because they skipped work to strike, but because protesters showed up and forced them to not work. A lot of people responding on this page have zero sympathy for the common man who they are supposedly fighting for. Even if the vandalism hadn't occurred, how did shutting down the port advance the movement? Nobody has a clear justification that makes any sense. People are trying to rationalize it after the fact. Would shutting down the Oakland International Airport next somehow advance the movement? It's owned by the same company. If so, then why? What's the point of shutting down a place of business? Why would the average American support the idea of an angry mob showing up one day to forcibly prevent them from earning a paycheck?

The protesters in Oakland selfishly forced other people to sacrifice for them. A full-time protester camping out in a park for weeks has nothing to lose by not working for a day during a strike. A guy trying to feed a family and pay his mortgage on an hourly, blue collar paycheck has a lot to lose by missing a day of work. The protesters selfishly forced people who have more to lose to sacrifice. When you start selfishly infringing on other people, you become their enemy.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

maybe the statement is.. create a job for me to replace the one you eliminated through your greed.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Who is the intended recipient of that message? The company what owns the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport? Did they eliminate jobs through greed?

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

no they are just collateral damage, like the workers were collateral damage for the sake of the shareholders

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

"Collateral damage" is a euphemism for "damage". Harming workers in the name of helping workers is an obvious contradiction.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 3 years ago

But didn't Bush have to "abondon Free Market Principles to save the Free Market System?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1G2Jyvpje8

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

not so.. do you not bear the pain of working out in order to benefit from the improved health?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You're trying to force other people to bear the pain from your actions. That's where you lost me. Costing longshoremen and truck drivers a day's paycheck accomplished nothing other than harming some of the 99% and alienating a lot of people who saw the news about it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

we are all one society. what is happening to me will also happen to you. you dont want to act now to prevent that?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Act now, by harming other people? No I don't want to do that. I don't support that. If that's what this movement is becoming then I won't be the only one. I'm the tip of the iceberg. I'm one of the only people not affiliated with this movement who has bothered to pay attention to what's happening. Other people are forming their opinions from the photos of kids with bandanas over their faces breaking store windows with bicycle locks.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

im not condoning vandalism or violence either..but blocking business entrances and such is just fine. it was for one freaking day , it did not hurt any workers by them taking a day off. you are over reacting.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The workers who were harmed were the ones who did NOT take the day off, who were forced to lose a day of income because of the protesters. If you're claiming to represent the 99%, who have concerns about surviving through the difficult economy, then you're not scoring any points by robbing some of the 99% of their pay for the day.

The impression that I get is that the protesters feel that if they can't be successful under the current system, then NOBODY should be successful under the current system. As evidenced by the hostility not just toward the 1%, but also toward workers who are lucky enough to have decent, paying jobs. The protesters seem to view the entire system, including longshoremen and truck drivers, as the enemy.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

i dont think so. but losing a days pay is a small price if this protest keeps thier grandkids from eating out of a dumpster 30 yrs from now dont you think? or do you imagine things are going to return to normal by the good graces of corporations and gov.?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Forcing other people to lose a day's pay is the problem! Nobody cares if you lose a day's pay for what you believe in. When you start going around intentionally trying to cost other people a day's pay then you become a bigger problem than the banks. Can you imagine how pissed off people would be if Bank of America managed to come up with some kind of policy that would force people to give up a day's pay in order to benefit Bank of America?!? Why would anybody feel any differently about Occupy Wall Street? If you're costing people money then you're part of the problem!!

[-] 1 points by Disgruntled1 (107) from Kula, HI 3 years ago

Im wondering where Homeland Security was? Arent they supposed to insure the safety of our points of entry, last time i checked, Oakland was a major point of entry, i can see protesting at the capitol or in a park but i agree with this post, What was the point?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That's what I keep wondering too. If a bunch of opportunistic anarchists can co-opt a movement like Occupy and start shutting down US ports, then WTF is the Department of Homeland Security doing? Isn't this what they're for? If these anarchists decide to "occupy" the Oakland International Airport tomorrow, then would that suddenly get law enforcement's attention?

When mobs start shutting down ports and vandalizing businesses, mainstream Americans start to get a little nervous. This is what law enforcement organizations are for. Everybody expects Oakland to be a rough place, so I guess they get a pass on this. But if a bunch of anarchists decided to shut down the port in Baltimore then I really hope that the Department of Homeland Security would step up and do their job.

[-] 1 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 3 years ago

Forget blocking ports; forget bashing skulls. The solution is simple:

End lobbying.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Sure, I don't disagree. So how does shutting down the port further that goal? How do the pictures in the newspaper of the kids with bandanas on their faces breaking windows with bicycle locks and flag poles further that aim?

[-] 1 points by MountainmanGlen (47) 3 years ago

In Baltimore, Homeland Security wouldn't get a chance to and I have little doubt there would be some deaths resulting.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

I say shut down all ports of entry until the they stop shipping our jobs overseas

[-] 1 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 3 years ago

End lobbying first.

Then work on that problem later when the businesses cannot simply 'undo' it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

i cannot work from the top down, i can only chip away at the foundation.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

How does that make any sense at all? Are you going to stop Dell from building a call center in Mumbai by hassling longshoremen and truck drivers in Oakland? Are you going to stop me from hiring more Venezuelan software developers by blocking access to the Port of Oakland? You're only hurting workers who are trying to feed their families. If that's what you stand for then I'm against you.

[-] 1 points by MountainmanGlen (47) 3 years ago

Most being Union workers as well, so much for solidarity.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

yes, the dell computers have to be shipped in for the guy in mumbia to have a caller. its trickle down everything has to bbe shipped in because all the jobs have been shipped out. forget boycotts.. there are already millions of workers that CANNOT feed thier families. what about those jobs that will never be replaced?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

So your aim is to somehow help the 99% by harming the economy? Dell has over a hundred thousand employees. Does it occur to you that some of those employees might be in the 99%? Do you think that those employees are going to support what you're doing, if your aim is to destabilize their lives? Don't you realize that harming Dell costs jobs?

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

the economy is already harmed or did you miss the part about 9% unemployment. if only half the people are going to have jobs because the corporations cant do any better than what does this matter? im suppose to care about the people who do have jobs when I do not? they can take the advice thats thrown out here as to .. save your money, life isnt fair, .. if they lose thier jobs to shut down what makes any difference as to why it happened?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You can't claim to be fighting for the American worker if Americans see you on television preventing American workers from getting their paycheck for the day. There is a very obvious contradiction there that might not bother you, but you are not mainstream America. Mainstream America is not fumbling for a rationalization for rioting like you are. Mainstream America isn't going to have much respect for people who claim to be fighting for workers, who end up getting workers laid off from their jobs. If that doesn't bother you, then you're an extremist.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

im not but this is an extreme situation. the government and the corporations intend for workers to not have jobs, lower pay, in order to make people more desperate for work. so desperate they will submit to anything. if this protest speeds that plan up by 10 yrs or so then good. are you just gonna wait until unemployment reaches 20% before you think its time to do something?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Unemployment in my sector (tech) is under 5%. So your overall plan is to destabilize society with the aim of somehow making it better? And you think that mainstream America is going to get behind your cynical anarchism?

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

society is destabilized .. im not destabilizing it . there are 14 million people without work.. and you think a few thousand missing a days pay counts for something?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, to the workers who are trying to feed their families who the protest movement is hassling, it matters. Do you not stand for the 99%?

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 3 years ago

I guess the message would be: "Don't shoot us in the head".

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

If you're talking about Scott Olsen then that's circular. Scott Olsen would not have been hit in the face with a tear gas canister if he hadn't been participating in a protest movement. For the protest movement to have any credibility, they have to have some kind of message other than protesting one of their own getting hit in the face by a tear gas canister, or else it's all just circular. If the Occupy movement uses circular logic to justify a protest, then it becomes obvious that protesting is itself the message. Disruption and discord is the goal. Anarchists, rather than people with legitimate political concerns.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 3 years ago

Is "circular" your word of the day?

It is not "circular" to say that a war veteran peacefully protesting should not be shot in the head; nor is it "circular" to peacefully protest in favor of that opinion. It is self-consistent --- but being "circular" and being self-consistent are two different things.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Okay so here's an example. I go and stand in the middle of the street to protest against the color purple. "PURPLE IS EVIL", is what my sign says. Cops come along to tell me that I can't legally block traffic by standing in the middle of the street. I take my sign and swing it around menacingly at the cops. They pull out a taser and stun me. Somebody gets it on video.

From that point on, can I use police brutality to justify going back the next day and standing in the middle of the same street? Forget the color purple, now I'm protesting against police brutality. I take my sign and smash a few passing car windows with it. In the name of protesting police brutality.

Do you see yet what I mean by "circular"? The color purple doesn't matter after a while, if I shift from my cause toward protesting police brutality. But if I hadn't been there protesting the color purple in the first place, then no cop would have ever tased me. Circular.

So yes, the word of the day is, "circular".

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 3 years ago

"Do you see yet what I mean by "circular"?"

Yes, I can see that you're misusing the word.

When you understand that too, we shall have a consensus.

Do you not see that free speech is a prerequisite for any other reform? If you do indeed have a grudge against the color purple, then before you can bring about any purple-related reforms, it is essential that you should not be shot in the head for criticizing the color purple. Unless you can establish that principle, you will not be able to do anything else, 'cos of being shot in the head.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You're so gung-ho for using a clash with police as your justification for your actions that it makes it really obvious that you don't really care about the color purple, or whatever it is that you're protesting. You're not advocating free speech or anti-statism or anti-globalization or socialism. You provoked a reaction from law enforcement and then used it as a justification for the protests that came after. Circular.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 3 years ago

You are lying to me, about me.

How do you think that's going to work out?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You never came up with a justification for the protests other than something that happened after the protests started. I'm not lying about that.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 3 years ago

You never asked. Since you mention it, Scott Olsen was protesting the corporate state. It is not unreasonable or "circular" to object to him being shot in the head while doing so. If you think it is, imagine explaining that to him: "Yes, you can protest about whatever you were objecting to in the first place, but when you also object to being shot in the head for protesting about it, that is circular reasoning."

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

My original post was nothing but me asking what was the point. So somehow the Port of Oakland represents "the corporate state", and you think that you somehow accomplished something by shutting it down for a day? Can you go back in time to before the protests started, to find a justification for shutting down the port? The port is evil because it's a corporation? That's the justification? All corporations are evil?

I spent literally all day trying to get somebody from the Occupy movement to explain clearly: what was the message? What was the objective? What statement did the port shutdown send, and to whom? I haven't seen a single clear answer yet.

Conclusion: The people in Oakland who shut down the port yesterday were anarchists who did it just to see if they could create a disruption.

[-] 1 points by whatishumanity (54) 3 years ago

rule no. 1. infiltrate and cause chaos

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Rule #1 for anarchists. Discordians. Malcontents. Disaffected youths. Rioters. Is that what Occupy is about now?

[-] 1 points by whatishumanity (54) 3 years ago

the few cause trouble for all. this is a peaceful movement. this is how they divide us

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

It's not a peaceful movement any more. Those days are over. The inability of people inside the movement to object to the senselessness of what happened in Oakland last night could end up defining the movement.

[-] 1 points by whatishumanity (54) 3 years ago

here's a quote from an article which covers what happened:

..."The clashes marred what had been a largely peaceful day's protesting in Oakland. Demonstrators had called for a general strike, and thousand gathered in the streets of downtown in warm sunshine, listening to speakers and dancing, while every so often darting off on a sporadic march."

..."Much talk in the camp was of a rogue group having committed the acts, without the backing of most protesters.

Bubb Rubb, from Oakland, was unimpressed with "these people in black clothes, with black flags".

"They bamboozled us. They wanted violence," he told the Guardian.

Many of the sites that were vandalised bore posters next to where the incident had occurred, saying it was "not the actions of the 99%".

Occupy Oakland: police use teargas after protesters force port to close http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/occupy-oakland-police-teargas

it's an overwhelming pattern for undercover cops to dress in black and cause violence in order to justify their own crackdown. They've been doing it for many years. When you see a large group of people dressed in black, with black masks breaking and throwing things at an event such as this, the probability is well above 80% that they're cops.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Cops are to blame? Seriously? 4500 cops shut down the Port of Oakland last night?

The biggest question that your post raises is: is the Occupy movement against cops? Is law enforcement your enemy? Law enforcement is not MY enemy, and after last night in Oakland, I'm looking to law enforcement more and more to do something about this unproductive disruption. If the Occupy movement has been co-opted by anarchists then it's time for law enforcement to shut it down. I originally supported the idea of this movement before I discovered the reality of the nihilist and anarchist dominance over the protests. Now that I realize that the movement isn't going to accomplish anything politically, I just hope that law enforcement finds a way to shut all of it down before any truly serious riots happen.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

Man. You people are bitches. Do you understand direct action AT ALL? You're like, "yes, protest the system, so long as you don't do ANYTHING to hurt the system!" How pathetic. We need MORE direct action. What we need to do is disrupt the real villains - WalMart, strip malls full of chain stores, McDonalds, CocaCola. And you know, it sucks if any workers are harmed, but we're at a point where you can't really harm a corporation without harming a worker, right? So what do you suppose we do? Your argument is the same as saying we should keep buying chinese plastic crap because a chinese worker might lose their job if we don't.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

It didn't hurt the system. It ONLY hurt the little guy. Which is who we're supposed to be representing. Right?

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

Anything that disrupts the system hurts the system. You're wrong.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

you wont know this till you have a family to feed. then you understand.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

I have 4 children. Sorry, I understand plenty.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

I dont think so, parents don't get to be anarchists the minute you have a baby then you know about responsibility. But if you do, then you can be right for yourself if you don't care if you go to work or not to feed your kids. But you are wrong for the people who want to go to work to have a paycheck to feed theirs.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

So I should support a system that is without a doubt going to force my children to live in ecological catastrophe, economical collapse, and a society based on enriching a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else because "someone" might miss a day of work. Ok, got it.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

well care about that guy who misses the day of work because of you. he got his kids. they important to him. You don't talk for 99% unless you care about that guy. You will never get that guy to support OWS and what we are doing unless you care about that guy. And we will stay small and we will dwindle off unless all that kind of guy believes like we do, and they won't if you make them not feed their kids.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

sigh I DO care about that guy. "That guy" is my husband, who doesn't get paid if he takes a day off. "That guy" is me, who doesn't get paid if I take a day off. I understand the dilemma. But I'm asking you, what is the alternative? You want to keep lying to these people and tell them that they can have significant socioeconomic change but magically not a single worker will experience a single millisecond of distress? It's ridiculous. Or maybe you don't want significant socioeconomic change, at which point we have nothing more, really, to discuss, because we are on two totally different sides of the issue.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

now we getting somewhere. You get them to willingly give up their day like you do, not force it on them. You get them to believe first, to stand beside us. You get them to understand, so they will fight too. But when you take from them, when you force it on them, to lose their money, then you are not better than the system taking from them and taking their money. So we speak, we tell it, we tell it again, and again, and more will hear and believe, and then when they come on OUR side of the barricade, because they understand, and they want to like you do, then we win. Now you get it.

We can not be like the system and have reasons that it is ok to make people poorer, even by one day. We can not be like the system and force people to line up with what we want them to do. No, we here to enrich the people. they will come on our side of the barricade through understanding and belief, not by force.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

No. My point is that there is no reason NOT to have a strike or direct action simply because someone might not be able to go to work for a day. I think it sucks if people like me and my husband missed work for a day. I really do. I understand how hard that is, believe me. My husband has been laid off twice in the last year for about a month at a time. It sucked. But I would not ask protesters not to take direct action in a city that called for it in order to stop me from missing a day of work.

We can just agree to disagree. My opinion is seriously not that big of a deal anyway. I am nowhere near Oakland or any other city likely to have a strike. This is all just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

well, you can advocate forcing things on people that they do not want. Or you can work to make them understand so that they do want it. I don't think that is agree to disagree. I think that forcing people to be poorer, even by one day, is very much like the system way of forcing people to be poorer, that we are trying to change. And I hope you read again what it means to make someone poorer by force, or let them give up their day by believing in something, like you. Read again, and maybe you see. force or choice? that is freedom we want to fight for. The freedom to choose, like you do, or to have it forced upon them by someone else.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

...we're at a point where you can't really harm a corporation without harming a worker, right?

Was that a way of saying that corporations are people?

So what do you suppose we do? Your argument is the same as saying we should keep buying chinese plastic crap because a chinese worker might lose their job if we don't.

Is that somehow what the shutdown of the Port of Oakland was supposed to be about? Chinese plastic crap? It was supposed to send an anti-globalization message?

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

The shutdown of the port was direct action aimed at the city of Oakland due to their excessive violence toward the people of that city.

I am absolutely not saying that corporations are people. I'm saying that to change this system, we need to decrease the power of giant corporations in this economy. That is going to absolutely mean some people losing jobs. I'm sorry, but I do not have a single shred of commitment to maintaining a system of crushing inequity and massive corporate profits at the cost of our ecosystem, human rights, and participation in liveable communities. This is going to get messy. Period.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That's circular, which makes it a rationalization rather than a justification. The protest formed, which led to the cops taking action against it, which was excessive, and now that's the justification for the protest movement? That's circular logic that makes it obvious that the goal the whole time was simply to incite discord.

And if you're saying that it's not possible to harm a corporation without harming the workers, the people, then you absolutely are saying that corporations are people. When you harm a corporation, you're harming people. When the Occupy movement shut down the Port of Oakland last night, it harmed people. Longshoremen and truck drivers who didn't get their day's pay because of the protesters. Do you think that the company that owns the Port of Oakland and Oakland International Airport felt pain last night? More than the 99%er truck driver who is going to have problems feeding his family now because of the protesters? If the movement is in favor of "things getting messy" then they're not going to win a lot of mainstream support. Most Americans don't want things to get "messy". Most Americans want stability. If the Occupy movement is against stability then mainstream America will turn against the Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

America is not stable as it is, as is evidenced by the volatility in multiple markets.

Corporations are not people, but they are made up of people. All groups are obviously made up of people - that does not mean that all groups are valuable or helpful in a society. The Nazi party was people too. That didn't make its behavior justifiable or beneficial to humanity or the nation of Germany. And it was impossible to dismantle the Nazi party without making a mess. Any massive system cannot be changed without someone being harmed. It's unfortunate, but reality. My personal belief is that from any pain felt from the destruction of corporate power in our society, a far better system can be realized.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

If you want this movement to stand for disruptive change that destabilizes society and harms workers, then only the anarchist fringes are going to remain after another month or two.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

SIGH. The US economic system destabilizes society and harms workers.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Do you not realize that mainstream America isn't going to accept that as a rationalization for you destabilizing their lives? You're claiming to fight for the 99% but now you're just throwing them under the bus and calling them collateral damage in your quest to accomplish ... more disorder. That isn't going to play in Peoria.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

So you want to do what, then? Keep a failing system? Let corporations destroy democracy completely? I'm not saying I WANT disorder. I'm saying that in my personal opinion, BECAUSE of the fact that corporations have completely dominated every aspect of life in this country, it is now physically impossible to take power from them and restructure/downsize this economy without some job losses or other issues. This is the whole "too big to fail" thing - if we don't keep bailing out the banks, there really could be serious economic repercussions. Does this mean we should bail out the banks forever? No - we have to accept that we might have to go through something tough in order to save our society. Whether that "plays in Peoria" or not is irrelevant. It's the truth. The only thing that "plays in Peoria" is bullshit and lies, because people want to imagine that this system can sustain itself as it is - somehow they will magically get their decent jobs back. Somehow the elite will materialize an economy where the middle class can have 5 bedroom mcmansions and three cars and all the candy they can eat without gaining weight. It isn't going to happen. It's a lie.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

If you're going to fight to rationalize excuses for messing with American workers and preventing them from getting paid for a day's work, with no regard for what mainstream America thinks about that, then you're going to become a much bigger threat in the mind of the average American than Wall Street. Is that what you want? Do you want Americans to start looking at the Occupy movement as a threat to the American way of life? Part of the problem? Is that going to somehow further the movement?

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 3 years ago

The Occupy movement, if it is successful...CORRECTION...ANY movement, if it is successful in chipping away at a system of extreme social stratification and inequity, is going to be portrayed as a threat to the "american way of life." Do you know what critical mass is? We don't need the "average" american in small-town Iowa to agree with us - we need critical mass, which is enough support to bring about social change. In order to get social change, we need to hold some currency that the ruling elite cherish. I.E. their money or their safety. Which do you believe we should attack? I am not calling for attacks on their safety, so the only option is attacks on their money. You think they'll give you change out of the goodness of their hearts? They'll give you change because if they don't, they lose money or safety. The ruling elite DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. They don't care about the ecosystem. They don't care about the public. They don't care about the health of the nation. THEY. DON'T. CARE. This is not some game. This is a real life or death battle. If people can't handle a day off work, we're fucked. Seriously. This has been the problem with the left for years - we aren't willing to sacrifice ANYTHING. We could have stopped the invasion of Iraq and slaughter of around a quarter million people over there if we had been willing en masse to shut down ports, to shut down oil transport, to strike and monkeywrench and be hardcore. But we weren't - and now a quarter million people are DEAD. And we can blame George Bush or the republicans if we want, but really, it's OUR fault. Because we're a bunch of pampered whiners who are too scared we won't be able to pay our cable bill to save the lives of human children in the third world - or our own country, for that matter. It's sickening. And it will be equally sickening when this movement pusses out and loses yet another opportunity to really DO something, in favor of sitting in a park eating pizza and begging the police for favors. Because, gawsh, a worker might not get paid for the day if we disrupt things! Pathetic.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You're clearly not fighting for the common man against the "ruling elite" if you're making it even harder for him to make a living. And how do you think that you're ever going to attain critical mass by forcing other people to sacrifice for what you believe in? Isn't the entire premise of this movement that the wealthy are unfairly forcing the common man to sacrifice, for their benefit? Do you think that people are going to support you in opposing that abstract idea when you're standing in front of their trucks, preventing them from working shifts and earning paychecks? Do you thnk that the abstract injustice of a slanted society is going to be a bigger concern than the far-more-tangible problem of saboteurs actively making it harder for the common man to earn a living? If you intentionally shut down my place of business, am I going to be more angry at you, or at Wall Street?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

The cops are the ones sowing anarchy, not us.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That's circular. The cops in Oakland had no interest in the Occupy movement until there was an encampment in Oakland. The protest started before the incident with the cops and the tear gas. So for the protest movement to point to that incident as its justification is circular. "We protest because of police brutality, because of our protest." It makes absolutely no sense, and it doesn't legitimately justify shutting down the Port of Oakland and costing a bunch of workers their day's pay.

Is this movement against workers getting their day's pay? Is this a movement that justifies vandalizing businesses by pointing to police brutality that occurred after the protest started? That's a rationalization.

Why is the Port of Oakland evil? Why is the Oakland International Airport not also evil? Why is the Oakland Mall not also evil? What was the point of shutting down the port? Who did it harm, other than the workers at the port? What was the message? Who was the message aimed at?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

The police spokesman was on Thom Hartmann's program and he said the mayor ordered them to do it. ooooooooooo, she is toast.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

Those who are enforcing current laws are actually the ones promoting a society without laws (which is what anarchy is)? That doesn't even make sense on any level. If you are promoting anarchy, then you promote that there are no laws. Geez.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

Iraq veterans against the war is who you should apologize to.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

That made no sense following my comment. But then you prior comment made no sense either. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me, but it's irritating when the comments are disjointed and make no sense. Who was talking about apologizing to someone?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

You first need to read up on the enlightenment, progressive history before you can judge what I say. I am highly well informed as well as highly evolved. I certainly don't favor Wall Street over the people as you do. You must own stocks or are just dumb.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

This has gotten really, really funny. Did I ever say I favor Wall Street of the people? Nope. Do I own stocks? Yep, I sure due. And bonds. And cash deposits. I earned all of that.

But really, I had NO IDEA that I was dealing with a self-described highly evolved person. Oh, wait. If you are that highly evolved, are you still a person? Or, is there something else that you become after a certain level of evolvement. Really, this fascinates me. Is your head enlarged like a light bulb? Have you evolved past the hair on the head stage. I mean, I know I've seen that in some movies. I just don't know if you have even evolved beyond that level.

But whatever, I do agree that you and your group greatly resembles the bar scene in Star Trek.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

You should be more offended at people losing their houses and becoming poorer.

[-] 1 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 3 years ago

You obviously don't know what anarchy means.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Well then whats the difference between shutting down the port for no particular reason other than causing a disruption, and anarchism?

[-] 1 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 3 years ago

Anarchism is a stateless society based on non-hierarchal, voluntary associations.

It does not advocate chaos.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

How can you call a mob that descends on a place of business to disrupt it anything other than "chaos"? Especially considering the wanton, late-night violence that followed?

Are you trying to tell me that Occupy Oakland is an anarchist movement but that's not a bad thing? How can a socialist movement be anti-statist? That makes no sense. The Tea Party was the one protesting against the government. I thought that Occupy was protesting business, and demanding more government regulation, as opposed to being discordian anarchists advocating for no government.

[-] 2 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 3 years ago

I call a mob that descends on a place of business to disrupt it and smash windows...a violent mob. I don't associate any particular political ideology with it.

I don't agree with the violent actions of the fraction of this movement that is now being highlighted by the main stream media however, I am intelligent enough to recognize that they are just that...a fringe of the movement. I certainly won't withdraw my support of the movement because of a handful of bad eggs.

As far as this negative connotation with anarchy is concerned how is the root concept of anarchy bad exactly? It was my understanding that it is based upon the notion that human beings when left to their own devices don't need government to tell them what to do. That they - or at least the vast majority of them - would make the right decision. The Tea Party should be laughing with glee at a movement that wants to disassemble this "Big Government." Isn't that their whole deal and likewise OWS should be doing the same.

It freakin' amazing how we as Americans just draw that party line and won't cross it to step into a middle ground. Even when Corporations and Big Banks have their boot heals pressing our necks we insist on fighting each other - slinging mud like a bunch of 4 year olds. Absolutely astounding. Time to grow the hell up America.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The people involved in the Tea Party are not going to support riots that shut down ports just because they favor small government. Remember that those people also tend to be big law-and-order supporters. The shutdown of the Port of Oakland was the opposite of that. The Tea Party understands the difference between effective political action and an aimless mob. They successfully settled on a common platform, got people to get behind it, and elected candidates who are responsive to their concerns. The Occupy movement, on the other hand, has clashed with police in multiple cities, broken a lot of local ordinances, shut down the Port of Oakland, and vandalized some businesses. They still have no clear message, no clear issues framed, no clear positions on any issues, and they've now been co-opted by nihilists and anarchists. I wish that there were some kind of national approval poll to measure support for the Occupy movement, because the photos of the masked Occupy protesters vandalizing businesses that were all over the newspapers today very likely made that approval rating drop by a lot.

One thing that last night in Oakland demonstrated was that human beings probably shouldn't be left to their own devices. The cops stood back, and protesters vandalized businesses and shut down the port, harming mostly just the workers at the port. Other human beings.

[-] 1 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 3 years ago

What exactly is the Tea Party definition of "effective political action?" I haven't seen the Tea Part accomplish anything beside become co-opted by rich folk, get some zealots in congress and further divide this country. They are all about drawing that line in the sand and NEVER EVER crossing it even if their side is on fire and they're all burning. That's nonsense. It's exactly this stubborn inability to cross party lines and even entertain that maybe there is a better way that is destroying this country - and by proxy the world. Don't think me naive either, I'm full aware that the democrats and republicans are just more of the same.

We must change the way we relate to the world and to each other and that change will occur whether it be by Tea Party hands, OWS hands or natural means. Right now it's a matter of what part we want to play.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Do you recall the debate over the debt ceiling, when the newly-elected Tea Party candidates forced the reluctant Republicans to take a stand against more debt? The Congressional "super-committee" aimed at long-term debt reduction would not exist if the Tea Party hadn't successfully focused on specific positions on specific issues. They successfully made government more responsive to their concerns, and they're still going. They proved that the system does work, and that you can work within the system to effect changes.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

[-] 1 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 3 years ago

It isn't a socialist movement just because there are some socialists that support it.

OWS is protesting corporate influence in government, the corruption of politics.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, so then what was the point of shutting down the Port of Oakland? The same company also owns Oakland International Airport, are you also interested in shutting it down? Why? How does it further the movement to disrupt the economy? If disrupting the economy is the only goal, and there is no clear justification for it, then what do you call those people other than anarchists? "Discordians"? I'm supposed to support that? Brian Williams is going to get on the news to talk about protesters disrupting ports and airports and shopping malls for the sake of creating disruptins, no other reason, and mainstream America is supposed to be swayed to join the riots? Is that the plan?

[-] 1 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 3 years ago

When you ignore the general idea behind the movement and get people to focus on the fringe, you have mainstream media.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

When you sidestep the question and keep bashing people who ask them, you're an idiot.

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

You've got it backwards.

If a bunch of striking longshoremen shut down the port, they'd be ignored and derided as "special interests".

Tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life rising up to let the powers that be know they've had enough--that's another story.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You would think the same thing if the protesters were shutting down shopping malls, or airports, or other things that affect you more directly than the port?

Any institution is a fair target for disruption, for sending a vague anti-authoritarian message to the "powers that be"? That's called "anarchism".

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

The port was a target of opportunity, since the region's labor scene is dominated by the very activist ILWU Local 10.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

A "target". Why? Why is the port bad? Why am I supposed to hate the port? Should I also want airports and shopping malls shut down? What is the message, other than, "we can create disruptions"? "We can screw up people's days"? "We can incite disorder"?

[-] 1 points by MercD (20) from Spanaway, WA 3 years ago

The longshoreman that protested here in WA got national coverage...

The oakland shutdown did nothing but hurt our... your image... the OWS has been co-opted

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

Right, that's why BBC Business News has an editorial warning all stakeholders and other Important Folks to take this movement seriously before it bites them on the ass.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

I don't think OWS has been co-opted. This is really who OWS has been all along.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

It might be. We shut down the port of Oakland because we 'could' and we are 'right' and who cares about the rights of the workers who lost their paychecks. But woe and god forbid if someone tries to shut our protest down? I get the 'circular' logic here, and its looking only like whining and wanting to 'be right', not to accomplish anything in particular. But Im not stopping yet, my local group is still on target and we haven't been corrupted by anarchy at our camp.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

Protests are shut down when they break the law, simple as that. The Oakland port was not breaking the law. Also, protests are shut down by the police, who's job it is to enforce existing laws. What happened at the Oakland port was nothing by a riotous mob. That is also called anarchy.. Good work there, huh.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

Oh, boy and that really showed them now, huh. Yeah, sure nuff.

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

Yes, I know it frustrates and annoys you. Large scale change is painful.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

There is nothing large scale about OWS, other than its dreams. And the more crap you pull like you did in Oakland, the more of what little you have will leave you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

It would be very counter-productive for this movement to become associated with people who have been unsuccessful under the current system, who want to destroy the entire system. Most of the 99% are heavily invested in the system and they won't support that. The Oakland activity last week illustrated that there are a lot of people within the movement who see the movement as being against society, structure, order, and authority. Most of the 99% percent are not in favor of destabilization of society like the anarchists within Occupy are. Allowing the movement to become associated with the goal of destabilization will limit support for the movement. It will become a fringe, extremist, anarchist movement, instead of a productive, inclusive, populist movement.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What's there? The association, in the minds of mainstream America, with anarchists bent on destabilization? That may be true. I'm paying close attention to approval polls to look for an effect resulting from the Oakland protests last week.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 3 years ago

It's liberals, urging their anarchist brothers to stir up some shit. They give them and union thugs "the wink"...go ahead do it...but you realize afterward we'll say we didn't really support it.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 3 years ago

This is exactly why this "movement" will fail.

There is no leadership, no goal, and they've been targeting the wrong people from the onset. The problem isn't just the corporations. Congress gives corporations the rules, the corporations just pay them for it. It's a 2 way street, and it's filthy on both sides.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Demonizing the 1% and scapegoating the wealthy for all of society's ills is definitely a questionable philosophy. But holding a protest that puts people in the 99% out of work in the name of the 99% is undeniably stupid.

Making the movement more attractive to anarchists and nihilists, while making it less attractive to mainstream America, almost seems like something that some kind of covert, 1%er conspiracy would do, to suppress the movement and ensure that it accomplishes nothing. I'm not actually proposing this conspiracy theory. I'm just saying that with friends like these guys in Oakland, who needs enemies?

[-] 0 points by hahaha (-41) 3 years ago

It amounted to about 300 longshoremen getting half a day off. Period.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

And not getting paid for that day.

[-] 0 points by hahaha (-41) 3 years ago

Because they're the super rich. You showed them! Mission accomplished there, eh? I'd say try it a few more times. See how long they'll put up with it.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Right, because those longshoremen are the problem, they're part of the 1%. They're the enemy. Riiiiight...

[-] 0 points by hahaha (-41) 3 years ago

You are sarcastic-recognition challenged.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

No I recognized it and played along.

[-] 0 points by hahaha (-41) 3 years ago

Oh, then I am. lol

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 3 years ago

The Fuck?

Occupy da port to shut the fukker down! Hatin on the traders.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Traders? You mean importers? What does shutting the port down accomplish?

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 3 years ago

Shutting down the greedy corps dude

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Your chances of accomplishing that without the support of the rest of the 99% are negligible. And shutting down that port didn't do much to sway the rest of the 99%.

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 3 years ago

Will crush the others into agreement dude. Shut down trade they will agree!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You're going to convince people that corporations are stealing money from people by costing people money? Getting people laid off? If you continue along those lines then you'll be a bigger enemy to the average American than the banks, or the 1%.

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 3 years ago

No way dude. We are the 99% and fuck everyone else!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The people who work at the port are also part of the 99%. So are a lot of the people at the companies who are waiting for those shipping containers. So are a lot of the customers of those people. Once you subtract all of the people who you're going to alienate by threatening the economy, you're the 0.01%, not the 99%. You're not going to unify the 99% in solidarity if you're costing people money and jobs. If you intentionally threaten to wreck the economy just to make an ideological statement and draw attention to yourself, then the 99% will hate you more than they hate the banks.

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 3 years ago

BINGO!

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 3 years ago

Why? Because we're violent assholes who have to destroy things when we throw a tantrum. It's the best idea we have so far.turn

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

If only we could harness this testosterone of hate...

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/11/poll-voters-viewing-occupy-wal.php

Considering that the majority of this poll's respondents were "Democrats", odds are that the real numbers are even worse.

39% view the OWS movement unfavorably, 30% view it favorably 30% don't know enough to have an opinion

The Oakland thing is going to increase the negatives 100 times over.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

News stories like this make the movement look ridiculous:

OAKLAND -- After a night of confrontations with police and 80 arrests in downtown Oakland, Occupy protesters temporarily blocked an entrance at the Port of Oakland Thursday morning, attempting to prevent trucks from entering.

The protesters removed the fences about 9 a.m. after meeting with ILWU president Richard Mead, who appealed to their sense of fairness after they were told the dockworkers would not receive their full day's pay if they couldn't get to work. The protesters then fanned out to other entrances at the port to picket.

But it had been a tense scene at the port entrance at Adeline and 3rd streets, where truckers faced off with about a dozen protesters who erected a chain-link fence across four lanes of traffic and reinforced it with dumpsters to keep truckers and port employees out.

At one point while the barricade was up, one driver ran through it and said he would run down the protesters. In response, a female protester yelled "You are trying to hurt us over your job? For money? Really?"

Another driver got out of his truck and confronted the protesters. One of the female protesters told him, "Don't touch me or I'm going to call the police."

http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19255290

This story, and the shutdown of the Port of Oakland in general, give the impression that the Occupy movement is somehow against those workers. "You are trying to hurt us over your job? For money? Really?" How does that quote make any sense? Is that quote the message of this movement? "We hassle workers! Workers who value their jobs and money are against us!" That's going to make pretty much everybody turn against the movement. Nobody is going to pick ideology over paying their mortgage and feeding their kids. If this movement is trying to disrupt the economy to make it harder for people to feed their families then more and more mainstream Americans are going to support law enforcement when they work to keep these protests under control.

There is a pretty thin line between a protest aimed at creating disruption, and a riot. It won't help anybody in the 99% if the Occupy movement starts to cross that line, into "riot".

The fact that nobody inside the movement is questioning the wisdom of shutting down the Port of Oakland is a sign of weakness. A sign that this is not a serious movement toward anything, it's just an aimless mob. A mass of discontent, ripe for a takeover by anarchists and nihilists who don't need to fight very hard to perpetuate chaos and disorder.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

I have a family to feed. They will starve and go homeless if I dont feed them. Im starting to think that what the media says about occupy is true; college kids with no clue. When I have to work or eat, then yes, I seriously will choose my family over you getting in my way to do that. Think about what we're doing here, people. hurting the little guy who we are claiming to be.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

[Isaac Kos-Read, director of external affairs at the port] said that the demonstration prevented longshoremen from working the second and third shifts, and continued disruption to port operations will hurt employees and the already struggling economy. "Any additional missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region," Kos-Read said. "Continued disruptions will begin to lead to re-routing of cargo and permanent loss of jobs, a situation that would only exacerbate the on-going economic challenges of our region."

http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19255290

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

And they are all over the web.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

The problem is that they are all over the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement has become a magnet for malcontents, anarchists, and nihilists. Events like the shutdown of the Port of Oakland last night serve to further alienate mainstream America, and to make the movement even MORE attractive to the fringe extremists who vandalize businesses for fun, for the sake of creating disorder.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

The OWS movement was designed to do that-pull the fringe extremists together. The first month was just "bait"...the perfect recipe to foment something bigger, darker, and much more focused and well funded.

The peace-loving, law abiding protesters are the "red shirts" in the cast. They are the expendables. The extremists cannot allow a good movement/crisis to go to waste now can they?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I think that you're very correct about that. I think that's exactly what is happening now. The peace-loving, law-abiding protesters don't stand a chance against dedicated anarchists.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

Agreed

[-] 0 points by SanityScribe (452) 3 years ago

The movement was started by anti-capialists. It attracted many people who know something is wrong. A number of them seem to be misguided and actually believe what we have today is a result of capitalism. Others who understand the problem have joined the movement. The anti-capitalist, anarchist voice is the loudest right now. It also is what the press portrays as the entire movement. Now some weeks later it is becoming clear who is "REALLY" behind this movement. The more the anti-capitalists grow their numbers, the less support this movement will garner. I do not think Americans will sit by and watch this kind of anti-capitalism. There will be a time(probably sooner rather than later) that the citizens will demand that the authorities shut it down. It is not considered a peaceful protest when you are infringing on other individuals' rights.

Adbusters' from Canada....

http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/36-adbusters

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What I find dumbfounding, and shameful, is that nobody in the movement seems to really be concerned about WHY the Port of Oakland was "attacked" as a "target of opportunity" by anarchists, in their name. The fact that it happened was one thing, and it didn't necessarily reflect on the movement.

But for the movement to just stand by and not even question what happened, or why it happened, or what message it sends, or what the collateral damage may have been, is a second, and much more serious problem.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

It's because they have a weak mayor. It won't happen in NY because if the police don't wipe them out the people will.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

Keep trying to get through to them....

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I think it's too late. The shutdown of the Port of Oakland, with nobody inside the movement questioning WHY, was a watershed moment. Now instead of thinking of hippies in tents with bongo drums and sparkle fingers when people think of the Occupy movement, people are going to start remembering the images that were all over the newspapers this morning of anarchists breaking windows with flag poles and bicycle locks, and painting "STRIKE" on the side of the Whole Foods. Personally, I shop at Whole Foods, and if a relatively socially-conscious business like that is the enemy then this movement definitely doesn't seem to represent me.

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 3 years ago

What I remember is Occupy demonstrators in Oakland shouting, "No violence," and blocking the way of the people who were throwing things at Whole Foods.

[-] 1 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 3 years ago

Well, you may not be aware of this but Whole Foods was forced this year by Monsanto (an industrial chemical company and GMO seed company) to buckle to political pressure in selling their source, something WF fought strongly against for many years.

http://www.eatingrightdiet.com/http:/eatingrightdiet.com/whole-foods-and-monsanto-misinformation/

Now all food at Whole foods can be considered tainted by GMO source because GMO source is not required to be listed on ingredients, so of course, it isn't.

GMOs have been shown to have carcinogenic and mutagenic properties, so now your precious organic food is really just an expensive gateway to future medical care spending, just like Monsanto wanted it.

Oh well, it probably still tastes better than kroger brand stuff, so at least there's that.... the enjoyment of your futurecancer.

So, if that doesn't represent you, then fine. I know of some DDT in my back yard in colorado that you smear on your face too because the government isn't there to stop me from selling it to you. And I swear to God, as a Randian industrialist, I will do everything in can with my purse and sword to make sure I have the political permission to continue to make a profit by knowingly harming you and millions of others with my toxic products. /satire

[-] 1 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 3 years ago

off topic.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

You said it yourself, Whole Foods was FORCED this year by Monsanto. They are VICTIMS and we should be fighting FOR THOSE, all of those, who have been victimized. Pick our targets carefully, or we are going to be fighting the easy prey. We have hurt the 99% small paycheck workers of the docks, who are US. We have hurt Whole Foods, a victimized green business that got too big for Monsanto and had to take them down.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

So if Whole Foods commits a sin in your book, then it's okay to riot and vandalize their retail stores? That makes sense to you?

And really.... WHOLE FOODS?!? It didn't occur to people to demolish a Wal Mart? A McDonald's? You think that vandalizing a health food store, where a lot of your potential supporters shop every week, is going to win new supporters? Or do you not care about winning new supporters, and your only goal is to vandalize businesses?

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

I'm not advocating any of the violence or vandalism that took place, but just because Whole Foods sells organic food and seems all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it is run or operated by someone who supports the 99%. In fact, WF has a horrible track record with its workers, and its CEO John Mackey is a free market advocate who hates unions, came out strongly against healthcare reform, and thinks global warming is a hoax.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Who cares? No corporate policy justifies harassing a retail outlet's customers like the Occupy protesters did yesterday, or vandalizing the company's property. If this movement rationalizes justifications for riots and mobs that go around vandalizing businesses, then the last thing that mainstream America will be worried about will be the banks.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Yeah, I don't advocate vandalism or violence. I was making a point about Whole Foods as an ethical company if you're going to be drawing comparisons to Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

It should also be noted that here in California, we have a problem with "anarchist" groups who like to come whenever a group is gathered and destroy shit. These anarchists are the same people who vandalized Oakland during the Oscar Grant riots. Most of them are outsiders, and it was protestors who stopped the vandalism of that Whole Foods (which I live down the street from, btw) and who tried to put a stop to a lot of the vandalism. Don't blame OO for that. OO helped with much of the cleanup this morning and is paying for some of the damage.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That's news to me. I've been harping on this all day and I've heard nothing but rationalizations for what happened last night all day. It's all recorded here in this thread. The Occupy movement needs to clearly condemn at least that violence, if not the port shutdown. But due to their inability to come to a consensus on anything, that won't happen. Which leaves the opportunistic anarchists in charge of PR for the movement. They like getting photographed by AP journalists while they're breaking store windows, and that's the image that will become associated with the Occupy movement in the minds of average Americans. The whole Goldman Sachs ethical violation thing is far more abstract than a mob smashing windows. More people will object to the mob smashing windows.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

I can't reply to your last comment in this thread (it won't let me for some reason), but you can basically see my comment in the thread you linked. Yes, if you only think about the government response, the preparations cities across the country may be making, maybe it does seem counter-productive. But it did send a loud message that ordinary people can pack a substantial punch to hurt big business operations. I think we need more of this. Not less. We need to blow up the status quo, and I firmly believe that this is how it gets done. This movement has a lot on its plate--its target is greed, which is multivalent, and that gives us a much bigger burden than whatever the Tea Party feels it's fighting for (although there are points where we and the Tea Party agree). We want businesses to change, as well as politics, but businesses have money, and we don't. Money talks. We have to fuck with their money.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Because there was no clearly articulated message (or else I wouldn't have spent all day here yesterday asking for somebody to tell me what was the message) the actual message that the average American got from all of that was that a riot can potentially shut down bridges and ports, can cost workers money, and can hold up people in traffic and keep them from getting home to their families. The guys breaking store windows spoke far more loudly than anybody talking about the power of the 99% or anything like that. People in red states didn't see themselves in that protest when they watched television and saw "STRIKE" painted across a health food store. They saw something that looked threatening and dangerous.

The Occupy movement avoided picking specific issues or specific positions on issues for a very long time, out of fear of alienating people. The anarchists have now successfully forced issues, which is now alienating people, and the polarization for-or-against the Occupy movement will deepen.

Law-and-order conservatives now have something solid to use against the movement on right-wing media outlets like Fox News. The anarchists have succeeded in appointing themselves as PR reps for the Occupy movement. A guy with a baseball bat and a bandana over his face is the new Ketchup. The new spokesman for the Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

I agree totally with you on that. People here are scrambling to clear that up, too, but that's not what a lot of the media care about, so there is a lot of bias in the reporting.

And just so you know, I also had my own problems with the "general strike," but it gained momentum so quickly that opposition went largely unconsidered. I do understand the symbolic importance of the act, which is where you and I disagree, but I also think shutting down a port for several hours without the support of the ILWU was actually pretty premature, rash, and ultimately ineffectual. I love the energy here in Oakland, but I think what we lack is strategy.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

It was worse than ineffectual, it was actively counter-productive. That port shutdown will contribute to the decision-making process as other city governments consider how to deal with their own Occupy-related protests. And it discredited the movement in the minds of many of the independents and centrists who the movement needs in order to succeed. But none of that really matters anyway if the movement can't decide what "success" means, and focus on accomplishing something. If they can't, then the anarchists will continue to hijack and redirect the energy of the movement in destructive ways, just for fun. The actions taken by the anarchists are, by default, the only actions taken by the movement. The rational people all sit around playing sparkle fingers while the guys with the bandanas over their faces run around doing PR for the movement with baseball bats. That will continue unless the sparkle-finger people focus on something and start directing energy toward it.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

AND hides behind the first amendment as justification for violence against arresting law enforcement officers, claiming their rights to protest are being violated. Note to the violent thugs - there's a stark difference between the "right to commit crimes" (which does not exist) and the right to assemble peaceably. Some (a lot) of the Occupiers seem to have missed class the day they taught the first amendment.

Note to Occupiers - Exercising a right and exercising the responsibility to exercise the right are different. Until you get it and start denouncing everything that detracts from your movement (Communists, Anarchists, George Soros support, violence, etc.), you will never gain the credibility you need to be relevant.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

You need to look at Detroit. It's never recovered from its riots and and since become the cesspool of the nation into which all excrement flows.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

In the Detroit riots of 1967, the police started the problem with their raid on a black after-hours drinking club. In the Occupy riots of 2011, the Occupy movement first started to protest, then police took inappropriate action, then the protesters used the police action to justify their protest. Which is circular, and it makes no sense. The Zuccotti Park protesters tried to do the same thing at the beginning. They clashed with cops and then tried to make the police response into the justification for what they were doing. All of this makes it very obvious that the protesters are just looking for rationalizations to do what they want to do, which is disturb the peace and incite disruption.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 3 years ago

disruption is the only thing that corporations understand. the point is to make them understand that if people are not at work.. they are still going to cost you the same amount of money as if the corporation had not shipped that job overseas

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What corporation was harmed last night when the Occupy movement shut down the Port of Oakland? A lot of workers were hurt. But those containers will eventually get to their destinations. The net result of last night's shutdown of the Port of Oakland was twofold: first, it alienated a lot of mainstream Americans who were previously sympathetic to the movement, but who now associate the movement with the Stanley Cup anarchists in Vancouver. And secondly, it made the movement a lot more attractive to malcontents, anarchists, and nihilists.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Moreover, the Nov. 2 movement was supposed to be a call for people to voluntarily leave their jobs - creating a situation in which no business could operate because they had no employees on shift. Instead, you marched on and shut down the port of Oakland and forced a private business to not be able to conduct business (even though they wanted to). You forcibly coerced businesses into inoperability - which was not what the "shut down" was claimed to be about. Taking over the Bay Bridge just made you look worse because then you kept people from even living their normal daily lives - against their wishes. This kind of reckless behavior is what is making this whole occupy movement looks stupid and undesirable.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

The fires in Oakland remind us all of Detroit. 43 people died, thousands sustained injuries, and the city has never been rebuilt or recovered.

I don't think we can label this as civil disobedience, or disruption - they are acts of aggression intent on destroying the banks, wall street, and capitalism. Or, in short, inciting anarchy.

But, you know, fear of insurrection can be rather moving...

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

It's always a dead giveaway...as soon as someone proposes to "represent me" it's obvious that they don't. Their willingness to hurt the little guys, the employees, the citizens, the general public in order to achieve their goal of breaking the top 1%-makes them just as bad as the 1%. They are hurting the same people they claim to be speaking for. And that hypocrisy isn't lost on the rational, intelligent people watching this unfold.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Most people watching this unfold don't know much about the Occupy movement other than the headlines and the photos and the brief mentions on the news every day. Those photos are starting to look more and more like the opportunistic WTO riots, or the Stanley Cup riots. Were those people in Vancouver rioting to make a political statement? No. They were rioting for the fun of rioting. The Occupy movement has become a rationalization for people interested in rioting just for the sake of rioting.

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 3 years ago

A better place to learn about the Occupy movement is from the occupywellst.org than from the mass (corporate owned) media. At occupywallst.org, you could see live streaming video from the demonstration and see that it was mostly peaceful. You could also see later links to recorded video showing Occupy demonstrators trying to stop the violence at Whole Foods.

An Occupy demonstrator was hit in the head days before the general strike by a tear gas canister that was fired by police. IMHO, the general strike was brilliant as a way to say that is unacceptable.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

Well, you have to understand that they identify with these very riots and mass insurrections. It's a movement of hate.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

And mainstream America is also starting to associate the Occupy movement with the opportunistic anarchists who used the Stanley Cup as an excuse to go nuts and vandalize property.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

Exactly. You are them.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

Try to convince OWS that such people exist. LOL "They are plants"-they are "infiltrators" trying to bring down the movement. Nope. There really are, and always have been, very, scarey, evil, disturbed, angry people out there who WILL destroy for the sake of destruction alone.

And now they have seen the flickering lights of the "fires" and nothing can keep them from coming to play.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, definitely. The photos and video in the news today of anarchists vandalizing businesses in Oakland will attract more anarchists to the movement, and it will turn off more mainstream Americans from the movement. An outsider like myself should not be the one pointing this out to people in the movement. The fact that there hasn't been any serious questioning of the near-riot last night in Oakland by the movement is very disturbing. The shutdown of the Port of Oakland was one thing, but the inability of the movement to question whether that was a productive thing is far more significant.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

this is true. we will lose support, and without growing support from mainstreamers, the movement will die.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

It's a hinge-point. It's a defining moment, and how OWS handles what happened last night (and has been happening in Oakland over the past week) could very well make or break this movement. The general public is watching to see how OWS (or IF OWS) makes this right. If they don't-they will lose the support of every rational, law abiding citizen in this country.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I agree, and so far they're failing, as you can see from this thread on this web site. Why am I, an outsider, the only one questioning the counter-productivity of what happened last night? Nobody involved in the movement wants to question the wisdom of shutting down a shipping port and vandalizing a Whole Foods?

[-] 1 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 3 years ago

I don't know why you included the Adbusters links. Are you implicating Adbusters for blocking the ports? That doesn't seem fair simply because the values of the oakland party and adbusters are somewhat aligned.

Now, I don't work for Adbusters, and I don't represent them. However I do believe that Adbusters is a smarter organization than this; that they would not advocate physical force or embargo or anything illegal to get their message across. I don't appreciate your scientologist association of terror against Adbusters. See how I unfairly framed that? Winning!

Instead, Adbusters creates influential articles and ad campaigns to influence you-the consumer-to break free from the tyranny of injurious propaganda. They are an anti-consumerism and 'culture jamming' organization. Some characterize adbusters as 'anti-capitalist', however I posit to you that consumerism != (does not equal) capitalism. You -can- have capitalism without rampant, irresponsible consumerism. I suggest self-analysis of one's consumer behaviors with respect to their potential outcomes. For example, if you don't like buying tainted food from china, then by all means, stop buying it and tell others to do the same; if you are successful it will go away eventually.

At the end of the day, if you don't have orgs like Adbusters fighting aggressive forms of marketing, then you might as well just empty your wallets onto wall street for businesses to run up and take.

Because without Adbusters, you may have little to no power or willingness on your own to do the critical thinking and marketing contrarianism that Adbusters would be doing for you.

[-] 0 points by MercD (20) from Spanaway, WA 3 years ago

It caused several of us to leave Occupy Seattle... the message was good... until this crap happened in California...

All they did was hurt the workers, and that is sad... even worse, they were on the bullhorn shouting that they were successful...

[-] 2 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Hurt workers how? They didn't have to come to work, and they still got paid. You have to do something big to send a message. Organizing strikes, walk-outs, and boycotts is how you do that. Disrupting business as usual. How exactly do you propose sending the message that we're sick of being corporate gudgeons, with our rights and our opportunities dwindling daily? Just this February, up 100,000 people occupied the Wisconsin State Capitol with no response, no change from lawmakers. Drastic measures need to be taken. You think sitting in a tent in a park is ultimately going to accomplish anything? Think again.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

They're hourly workers. They missed shifts. They did not get paid. This movement cost workers money. Shutting down the port made it harder for members of the 99% to feed their kids.

[Isaac Kos-Read, director of external affairs at the port] said that the demonstration prevented longshoremen from working the second and third shifts, and continued disruption to port operations will hurt employees and the already struggling economy. "Any additional missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region," Kos-Read said. "Continued disruptions will begin to lead to re-routing of cargo and permanent loss of jobs, a situation that would only exacerbate the on-going economic challenges of our region."

http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19255290

[-] 1 points by elsur (0) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Get Your facts correct. The workers were paid.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I posted my citation, where is yours?

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

My bad, I didn't realize they were paid hourly. I can admit when I've made a mistake. Still, I believe that shutting down the port did more than just hurt workers, and I think you're being reductive by saying that the people here didn't consider that.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes it did do more than hurt the workers. It hurt the movement itself. Shutting down the Port of Oakland was a self-discrediting act on the part of the Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

I don't think that's true. That's your opinion. It made a huge impact here in the Bay Area. I've already asked what you would suggest in terms of sending a message to businesses and corporations. Historically, strikes, sit-ins, boycotts, walk-outs, and getting human bodies mobilized, etc. are how this has been done. I don't know what else you think will have an impact.

[-] 1 points by dthompson (79) from New York, NY 3 years ago

What exactly is it that you want the Port of Oakland to do?

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Nothing. It's about the companies that run business through the port and all other businesses. The shutdown flexes collective muscle, exercises power over day-to-day business operations.

[-] 1 points by dthompson (79) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Showing them what - that they should not ship through Oakland? Take a look at the empty piers across the Bay in SF and ask yourself if you really want that to happen to Oakland. The shipping industry is practically the only industry the east bay still has.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

San Francisco and Redwood City aren't equipped to handle the goods that come through Oakland, so I don't know what you're talking about. San Francisco makes its money through different industries. But no, that is not the message. The message is that ordinary people can shut down companies. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

[-] 1 points by dthompson (79) from New York, NY 3 years ago

The shipping industry used to run through SF. Then it became too much of a pain in the ass to ship through SF, primarily because of union activity. That is why all the empty piers are there. Keep this up and shippers will move to LA.

The message, if there was one, is that Oakland is a questionable place to do business. Isn't the Oakland unemplyment rate high enough for you already? Do you think it is only large corporations who ship through Oakland?

How is

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

Look, I can tell you what message the protestors intended to send. I don't care how you interpret the message. Let me emphasize that what you and I are disagreeing on here is based upon a difference of opinion, and you're not going to change mine.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

This is my personal opinion about what the movement should be doing:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

[-] 1 points by 17742563 (4) 3 years ago

The system itself makes it hard for everyone to feed their kids. Alan Greenspan loved the idea of worker insecurity. With that invisible gun to our heads, a missed shift will seriously screw up a lot of peoples day when so many people work pay-check to pay-check.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Nobody is going to care about abstractions like "the system" when there are guys with bandanas on their faces vandalizing storefronts and blocking truck drivers from getting to shipping ports. The Occupy movement will destroy itself if it convinces the average American worker to fear Occupy riots more than they fear Goldman Sachs. Fearing Goldman Sachs is a pretty abstract concept. Fearing a guy smashing a window is a lot simpler for people to understand. Occupy could easily become less popular than Wall Street if this continues. Ponder that.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 3 years ago

How do you figure hourly workers get paid if they can't do their work? How do you help workers by financially harming their employers so they have less money to grow, or even keep the same staffing levels?

[-] 2 points by oaklandcami (71) 3 years ago

I said I didn't know they were paid hourly, hello.

Furthermore, hurting companies will always mean you are hurting someone's employer, so you're criticizing the whole strike/boycott/sit-in model, and I don't know what to tell you. That's how it works. The idea is that these tactics will make them change their policies and practices.

[-] 1 points by 17742563 (4) 3 years ago

I agree that drastic measures need to be taken. But to win we need a much larger base. So many people are still sleeping. At this stage in the game we need to create spectacle. Events big enough that it's impossible to ignore. Something that can't be spun by big media. Something that shouts our message so clearly that anyone who sees it will have no choice but to wake up.

Once we have everyone united. We will be unstoppable.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 3 years ago

Please pass this on if you agree. We are working on setting a date.

Force Change, Boycott Capitalism

We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.

When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back decades to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.

Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.

Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change

http://wesower.org

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

When you set up online elections, I absolutely guarantee you, I will not only be President but your new found God. And you will pay homage to me.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 3 years ago

Please pass this on if you agree. We are working on setting a date.

Force Change, Boycott Capitalism

We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.

When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back decades to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.

Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.

Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change

http://wesower.org

[-] 1 points by wdwgrotb (28) 3 years ago

Hey'we have been in bed with some of the most brilliant criminals in history,here and abroad check it out, we have been supporting dictators for a long time.When they won't or don't do wht we tell them to do we invade their country in the name of freedom,then we keep feeding the monster.

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 3 years ago

Workers at the Oakland port losing wages is serious, but the tears you are shedding, IMHO, are crocodile tears.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I continue to be baffled at what they think they succeeded at accomplishing?

[-] 1 points by wdwgrotb (28) 3 years ago

Not much of anything IMHO we should be directing our efforts towards the Washington idiots who think this is all a game,they remind me of six year olds.If they get reelected it's only our fought.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes I totally agree.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

"The protests against the World Trade Organization that rocked Seattle, Washington in late 1999 were an incredibly significant moment in the history of popular protests. Not only did the protestors succeed in disrupting the meetings of the world's most influential trade-governing bodies, but the event drew together incredibly diverse constituencies that represented a wide range of interests, many of which would seem to be incompatible at first light."

http://content.lib.washington.edu/wtoweb/

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I heard about on the BBC

US Occupy protesters clash with police at Oakland port


Protests have continued throughout the night in Oakland, California, as police clashed with demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street group.

Police fired tear gas as a group within the protesters lit a fire and threw stones and bottles at officers.

The late-night clashes followed a day of action against "corporate greed", which saw a mass protest march in central Oakland.

Protesters shut down the city's port, one of the busiest in the US.

Around 30 people were reportedly arrested in the early hours of Thursday, and at least four protesters were brought to hospital.

Protests on Wednesday were largely peaceful until around midnight local time (07:00 GMT), when some of the protesters reportedly lit a barricade on fire.

Afterwards, police fired tear gas and "flash bang" grenades near the


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15568057

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 3 years ago

I wasn't there so who knows but it only would take a couple provocateurs to go in and light some shit on fire to discredit the protest. The protestors have been very peaceful so far. But it is Oakland.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

people should not be lighting stuff on fire

but that did not stop the movement or the message

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

What message?!? Was shutting down the port supposed to send an anti-globalization message to somebody? Or was it just about creating a disturbance for attention and for fun? "Anarchism", in other words.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

it did

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Okay well then when did the Occupy movement become an anti-globalization movement? Last night?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

pretty much since the beginning

http://dailybail.com/home/occupy-ireland-make-bank-bondholders-pay-if-they-didnt-share.html

OCCUPY IRELAND - "Make Bank Bondholders Pay! If They Didn't Share The Profits, Then We Won't Share The Losses!"

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

So what exactly is it about a bunch of anarchists doing what anarchists do, that is supposed to convince mainstream Americans to support the Occupy movement?

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 3 years ago

Anarchist keep taking my left socks dam anarchist!