Occupy Oakland: 4,500 at Port, More Police Called

Occupy Oakland is the news tonight. There are 4,500 protesters at the Port, which is effectively shut down. Police are being called in from other jurisdictions.

The action is part of the general strike called by Occupy Oakland, which intended to shut down the city for the day in a rally cry against corporate greed, widespread unemployment and wage inequality. The general strike is the first event of its kind in Oakland since 1946.

...Several businesses, including Tullys, the Men's Wearhouse and the Grand Lake Theater, closed to support the general strike to protest the inequality of wealth and power.

Reuters has more here. You can watch live here at CNN. Is anyone keeping lists of these supporting businesses, so people can show appreciation by choosing them over competitors when they shop?

< ACLU Releases Guide to Protesters' Legal Rights | The X-Factor: Changing Words Not Okay, Slicing and Dicing Verses Fine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The "Main Street Alliance" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    Main Street Alliance issued a press release October 18 in support of the Occupy movement.

    From Main Street's Press Release:

    "I'm a small business owner. I work hard. I take risks. I create jobs. And I'm part of the 99%."

    "Small businesses don't need more tax giveaways for the rich. We don't need more money spent on bank bailouts, subsidies for oil companies, corporate agribusiness, and the wars. We need money reinvested in American infrastructure, education, and people. My businesses wouldn't exist without these reinvestments."

    "The 1%'s willingness to sacrifice our democracy for their own fortunes and power, to risk working people's retirements with risky investments, to exploit our natural resources for personal gain - these are not sound business principles. Any small business that operated that way would be run out of town in a week."

    "Small businesses enthusiastically support the 99% movement. It's basic math: to create jobs, we need customers, but the richest 1% can't spend their exploding fortunes fast enough to keep the economy going for the other 99% - which includes virtually every small business."

    Also, it's reported today that...

    Many businesses in Oakland decided to support the Occupy Wall Street movement to start a major strike in Oakland by rejecting any credit cards or debit cards for transactions. The only kind of payment that was accepted at these businesses was cash.

    The publication SFist.com was provided a list by an owner of the popular B Resteraunt and Bar, Don Harbison whom has locations in Oakland California as well as San Francisco. The following businesses only accepted cash in support of the Oakland Strike: Ajuda Day Spa, The Trappist, Tamarindo, La Calle, Pacific Coast Brewing Company, Quickly's Coobi, Air Lounge, Caffe 817, Ratto's, OB's, Cosecha Cafe, Marketing Kings, Liege and Lucky Barbershop. The rest of Mr. Harbison's message voiced the concern of cutting hours and hitting hard times.

    As a small business owner, that person did (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 11:56:31 PM EST
    need a bank bailout.

    Diggin' the Main St. Alliance... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:35:16 AM EST
    very important imo for workers and entrepeneurs to get together...the tw-headed bankster and mafioso government monster are killin' us both.

    Small businesses carry too much tax burden,  health insurance cost burden...they are the true job creators, the 1% are job eliminators.

    And really really diggin' the no-plastic idea...brilliant!  If all of the 99% didn't swipe plastic for a day or a week, what a powerful message that would be to the leeches, in the only language they understand...the bottom line.

    Close your accounts, cut up your cards, dodge every tax ya can...don't fund your demise, help your neighbor instead to fulfill your responsibility to society.


    Tully, (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    Oh, well, Tully's windows got smashed and the store looted at night by the Anarchist/Vandal contingent.  

    Look, there is an opportunistic anarchist element in this area that finds Oakland an easy target.  I lived in the area for years and I find them repulsive.  They destroy and never create.  They occupied the Traveller's Aid building, a non profit owned building and were tweeting at night that people should tag it and take it over.  

    That neighborhood there are a lot of groups doing great community work and to have these kids from hither and dither with no clue of what it takes to keep Oakland viable causing such havoc sickens me.  

    Quan the activist is more concerned about being liked than the interests of Oakland residents and the city as a whole.  

    Just read this from OccupySF (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    Yes, a couple of businesses received minor damage (smashed windows, graffiti, etc) by a small group at Occupy Oakland. But they were not of Occupy Oakland. Occupy Oakland protesters even cleaned the graffiti up in the early hours this morning and donated money to cover the actions of those who did not want Oakland to remain peaceful.

    Well played Occupiers... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    if only banksters and grifters were so keen to clean up their messes, eh?

    Got a book you'd like, Dog (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    A Renegade History of the United States by Thaddeus Russell. (LINK)

    Rereading it and loving it again. Starts with the rowdy freedom of tavern culture in 18th century revolutionary America and the influences pirates had in the port cities -- not a single prosecution for sodomy between 1750-1800.  Gonna rip through the rest today and tomorrow.  Great stuff.


    though I'll add... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    ...not all of it strikes me the right way, but what writer does.  Overall, an interesting and eye-opening read.

    Sounds interesting... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    I recommend in kind Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book", I read it years ago and here in the American Autumn me thinks it is time for a re-read.

    Since even the Library of Freakin' Congress refuses to carry it, here's a link to a free download...Abbie would surely appreciate that:)  

    I remember the chapter on demonstrations having some great tips for self-defense against brutalizing police.  

    Much of this classic "how to" is now obsolete I'm afraid,  as the United States has greatly expanded the police & security state since the 60's...but it is interesting sh*t none the less.


    Oakland at Night (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Addison on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    The "general assemblies", in Oakland and everywhere else, need to figure out a way to deal with the avowedly pro-violence black bloc anarchists in their midst. They are a breeding ground for counterproductive and anti-poor activity -- both from "real" anarchists and agent provocateurs in their midst. NYC's protesters have done a VERY good job (much better than I would've thought) of reducing their power and marginalizing them. Occupy Oakland failed last night a little in separating themselves from the pro-violence black balaclava squadrons

    I read a local news site (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    that said OccOak organizers did see the trouble brewing among the black clad and masked group but were unable to dissuade them from violence.  One witness said he saw an agent provocateur in black emerge from a police staging area in a parking lot and begin trying to incite the crowd to acts of violence.

    Hard to completely blame the peaceful organizers who have control only over those willing to cooperate and legitimately protesting.

    Remember that in MLK's final days, one of the last marches he led in Memphis ended up in violence as a group broke off from the marchers and began smashing windows.  And that happened to an SCLC organization that had years of experience in protest activities.

    Meanwhile, today, the black clad "anarchists" always seem to show up at leftish demonstrations, engage in violence, and get away with no legal repercussions, or at least none I hear about.  And it's not like they're hard to spot -- guess it's just coincidence and darn bad luck that the police don't happen to be looking in their direction as the violence unfolds.


    What you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    is that cops dress up in hoods and basically start the violence?  

    You see when you cannot see that people on your side are wrong, you invent monsters.  

    There is a strong anarchist contingent in Oakland/Berkeley.  They have been pulling this stuff and they will pull this stuff whenever they get a chance.  

    The GA's with their model of no leadership cannot control them.  Do you suggest that the City of Oakland abandon the neighborhood and the streets to this contingent?  



    You have very naive notions (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    of how police in this country operate to squelch or discredit leftish public demonstrations.

    Police themselves or police hire acting as agents provocateurs has been going on in this country for many decades.

    Heard of something called Cointelpro?

    And if they were legit anarchists, not police connected, which I doubt, I suggest the police are doing a remarkably pitiful job, on a consistent basis throughout the country, of failing to identify the easily identifiable troublemakers and prevent violence.


    So (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:17:03 PM EST
    In your book, the police cannot win.  They are all either being jack-booted thugs who are trampling on the poor protestors, or they are not doing their job fast enough and good enough to prevent violence before it happens.

    And by the way, while you think there are police plants, don't forget that there are also those militant folks who like to stir up trouble in protests and then will scream police brutality when the police move in to break up things like riots and window breakings and vandalism.

    Never only believe one side of the story.


    While I wouldn't doubt there (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    are a few on the left who'd prefer to fight fire with fire I also don't doubt their numbers are quite small and their disruptions not as consistent as compared to the violent disrupters on the payroll of law enforcement.

    And you should take your own advice and stop being so willing to accept just the police version of events.  They have a long history in this country of infiltrating, disrupting and then lying about it to the media and in court.

    Hate to ruin your Norman Rockwell portrait of the friendly local police out to protect and serve professionally and without bias, but the record shows they all too often act like the ones who belong behind bars.


    So silly, it's hard to respond (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    You assume it's many police officers and "only a few" civilians who engage in bad acts. Really?  You got facts to back that up? The fact is, you have absolutely no idea how many protestors, or people posing as protestors, are engaging in bad behavior so as to make the news, and keep the story alive, although it sounds like a paranoid fantasy - "there are cop plants everywhere - they're coming to take me away - oh my!"

    If the police start stuff and act illegally, such as in engaging in brutality, then they should absolutely have the book thrown at them.  But you keep telling yourself that all police officers are evil and everyone at these protests are pure of heart and just being picked on.  Throw in a pony or unicorn and you've got yourself a great bedtime story.

    See, the thing is, these people absolutely have the right to express themselves and to peacefully assemble. What they do not have, however, is the right to impinge on the rights of others. They do not have the right to break the windows of people's businesses, they do not have the right to block traffic, they do not have the right to spray paint graffiti on buildings, etc.  The problem is that the people engaging in this behavior are taking away from the very serious  message the real protestors are trying to get out. I support the actual protestors and hope they are successful in getting people to take their message seriously, but erupting into violence is not going to help the cause.  


    I think it's just as reasonable to assume (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    "many police officers and "only a few" civilians who engage in bad acts"

    as it is to assume only a few police officers and many civilians engage in bad acts.

    The problem you are facing is that you trust cops more than civilians and no one else here does.

    Frankly, I don't know why we should trust the cops.  They haven't proven themselves worthy of it.  One side is being "unsanitary".  But only one side is really beating the other side.


    JB (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    Who's to really blame for me thinking cops aren't looking out for my best interest, me or the ones I read about daily doing really dumb stuff ?  I, like probably everyone, grew up looking up to cops, they need only look in the mirror to see who is responsible for the mistrust a lot of us have.

    It's not that they cannot win, it's that trusting them is foolish.  I know they keep the bad guys from my front door every day of the week, but they also get caught doing many, many, bad deeds, including using plants to stir up trouble.

    The fact is no one knows, except them.  I will say this, if there are people running around in what sounds like ninja costumes, I would expect them to be the first arrested.  I will also say, I haven't see any with my own eyes on any of the footage.

    The truth is I don't know what to believe.  Common sense tells me cops are liars, but it also tells me a group of that many people isn't going to stay peaceful, plants or not.

    But I wish they would find their way to my neighborhood with their new found passion for sanitary conditions.  But oddly enough, they only seem to want to clean up areas with protesters in that space, the homeless using those same spaces as toilets doesn't warrant an army, or even a patrol car.  Which is actually pretty cool, I was kidding about cleaning up my hood.  Let them be, but don't tell me something I can disprove by opening my eyes.  Cops don't give a damn about sanitary conditions.


    They will come to your neighborhood (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    to check on sanitary conditions when they put dozens and hundreds of people in the space of your front yard. Are there the same number of homeless people in this same space the rest of the year?  If not, your logic is faulty.

    Cops may not give a damn about sanitary conditions, but the people who live and work near the sites certainly do.  Should the cops ignore their requests? How about if the it was happening next door to you - would you be tolerant of this for weeks at a time?  You may think you would, but my guess is that you would grow tired of it.

    Maybe it is pretense, but the distrust of cops is so amazing when people are so willing to give a pass and adopt a "wait and see what the facts bear before making a judgment" when it comes to other people in the news discussed around here - Joran Van der Sloot, anyone?

    Common sense tells me cops are liars...

    Really?  'Cuz everyone else is so honest?


    You're all right (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    Cops should just leave. Who needs 'em anyway at these protests?

    Oh, wait....


    some were arrested (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    at the recent Oscar Grant protest. None were from Oakland and irrc, one was from LA area.

    OccOak was successful in stopping them in the act of trashing Whole Foods. Many of the OccOak protesters had gone home last night before things flared up again.

    Personally, I think they are a bunch of cowards.


    There are real ones, too (none / 0) (#66)
    by Addison on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    I know (in "real life") of enough pro-violence anarchists that are not even close to being affiliated with the police to realize that cries of "agent provocateurs" only go so far. There are plenty of black bloc anarchists who are there because they want to provoke political violence so that the police get trampled over. It's the universe's wicked sense of humor that places them side-by-side in tactics and wardrobe with the policemen they dislike.

    I haven't posted here for a long time but (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Xanthe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    I did call Men's Wearhouse in Chicago to thank them and a very nice young woman told me I was the only party to call and thank her.  Everyone else (both nicely and rudely) were upset with the protesters and the store staying open.  So I made her day.

    Very disappointing. That store is not an exclusive shop but they do have good clothing and good sales - so I'm surprised so many people consider themselves the 1% -


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    I get stuff there for my son, they are always pleasant and attentive, the prices are good and the stuff seems to last a long time.

    Received from a small business owner (4.75 / 4) (#13)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    in a blast email the other day the following message:

    "If you really want to Occupy Wall Street, do your holiday shopping at a small independent merchant."

    A useful supplement.

    Ah yes, Oakland. Home of the 1%, (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 11:49:18 PM EST

    Hoping Men's Wearhouse, and other businesses (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:21:21 AM EST
    which closed in support of the strike, pd. their employees.  

    Protesters should've found out in advance (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jpe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 06:20:08 AM EST
    so they could figure out which windows to smash and whose buildings to spraypaint.  Well, maybe next peaceful march.

    You would have made a great (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:27:13 AM EST
    "Loyalist" back in the 18th century. Same "King's men" mentality IMO.

    One of our triple wingy friends (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    in uniform was talking super smack about OWS yesterday and another one of our friends says to him, "You would be just as comfortable in a black uniform with a skull and cross bones on it, wouldn't you?"

    I would imagine they are (none / 0) (#6)
    by coast on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 06:59:55 AM EST
    hourly plus commission, so that would be a NO.  Were they closed in support or to protect workers?

    Have you spent time in Oakland? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:17:10 AM EST
    It's every bit as lefty as SF or Berkeley. (Which is terrific in my opinion.) Lots of Oakland businesses close for May Day, for heaven's sake, so "closed in support" is far more likely than "closed to protect." I'd be surprised if they didn't pay their workers, but of course none of us know for certain. One of the businesses cited, Grand Lake Theatre, always displays interesting politically-themed messages on its marquee. You should have seen the ones after the 2000 (s)election.

    From the link (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    Windows were smashed at several Oakland banks and a Whole Foods market, with pictures of the damage posted on Twitter. Jordan blamed the vandalism and unruliness on a small group he identified as anarchists.

    Let us quit thinking that the demonstrations are peaceful.

    This is anarchy. Pure and simple. And the occupier
    people obviously cannot control them.

    If you cannot control yourself, sooner or later, someone will control you.

    Vast majority are peaceful... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    you didn't like it when the tea party was smeared because of a few knuckleheads, don't do the same to this movement.

    But the 99% peaceful might not last forever...the choice is DC's and their paymasters and their hired mercs who sometimes seem intent on escalating it into violence and destruction of property.

    To paraphrase John Rambo, Oaktown PD drew first blood here sir.


    This didn't help: (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    Metaphor made manifest.

    Remember, the pols and the (management-level) cops as well as their funders and contributors want violence in the streets, both to discredit the OWS message and, more importantly, so they can grab and never let go of more power.  To that end, they structure their activities so as to elicit a violent response.

    And if some guy in Mercedes gets lynched or beaten for ramming into a crowd, so much the better.  It's the pretext they're looking for.

    Remember, MLK and Gandhi taught - quite correctly - that violence ultimately discredits the person doing the violence.  Turning the other cheek, while it seems quite impractical, will wear out the violent actor and allow him to discredit himself.  It just takes a little longer.  Striking back plays into the violent actor's hands and to his strengths - armies and cops are selected, winnowed, trained and retrained in the use of violence (in the streets and in the courts) to achieve their ends, day in and day out.  The "satisfaction" derived from kicking someone's ass passes in a couple minutes or hours - the jail term will consume years.

    Why play into your adversaries' strengths?


    For sure you're right... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    non-violent civil disobedience, even in the face of violence, is the best way.

    But it is hard god damn work to get punched in the face and turn the other cheek...there is a reason protest leaders like Gandhi & MLK are one in a million special...natural instinct is fight or flight, not stand your ground and get your arse kicked, then chained, then caged.


    It's true, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    But we also must remember that both Gandhi and MLK were assassinated.  

    And why was that? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    Because they showed the ordinary 99% how to beat the 1%:  to not live in fear that something can be taken away from you.  In reality, nothing can be taken away from you.

    The thing is - and in one of his last speeches MLK evinced it when he was alking about seeing the mountaintop - the question is not whether a person will live or die, but rather how that person wants to live.  If you were born, you will die.  All fear is, is a belief that (a) somehow you can avoid death, but that if you do X (or don't do X), you will die.    

    Think back to John Wayne in The Shootist.  Harry Morgan, the sheriff, shows up at Lauren Bacall's boardinghouse to try to threaten Gunfighter Wayne into leaving town.  Wayne, knowing his terminal diagnosis, looks Morgan down and asks him "what are you going to threaten me with?", the implied answer being "Death?  That's already here." So, stop cowering.  

    So, if you wish to live cowering in fear, thinking that if you offend the money people (or whatever), you're going to die, go right ahead and live that way.  In reality, you're going to die regardless of whether you offend the money people or not.  It's a pretty powerful message and, not suprisingly, one the money people already knew when Gandhi and King spoke it.  But the money people knew what would happen to them (or, more importantly in their minds, to their money) if the 99% figured that out.  So, they killed the messengers.

    So, stop cowering.  Live the Declaration:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident:  that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    Is living really living, when you are a slave to debt, one where paying it merely turns the odometer in some computer program somewhere?  Or where you have to choose between eating, a roof over your head, or freezing to death because your job doesn't pay enough while the folks you work for are eating prime rib (or whatever) in an overheated salon decorated in the finest style?  I thought not.

    That's what really scares the 1%.


    Personally, what I was thinking (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:51:55 AM EST
    was that, if I'm going to go down, which I would be perfectly prepared to do, I'd just as soon take a few of "them" with me.  To me, the Second Amendment is just as meaningful as the First Amendment.  I respect and admire both Gandhi and MLK, and they were martyrs to their causes.  I respect people who can truly live the non-violence ethic and are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for it.  But for myself, if they come for me, I'm going to shoot back.

    #1 violence is wrong (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    #2 violence is playing into their strengths
    #3 violence discredits the non-violent
    #4  why the hell do you plan on being so generous to them?
    I could name many more.

    Look at it this way:  if someone exerts force against TPTB, they are being generous in manifold ways.  All the cops who will get overtime "to watch the streets" or "to prevent violence" or whatever bullsh*t the pols will spout, will be getting money they wouldn't have (to be extracted from the same victims).

    The contractors who will pitch whatever new gizmos for controling the masses, be it pain rays or tear gas launchers or concentration camps, will have one more thing to put into their pitches of why TPTB should buy their crap.  And they'll make more sales.

    All that - and the guy who does the violence either gets killed outright (which is something a goodly number of TPTB's employees really want to do - there are a substantial number of sick f*cks who get off on the idea of killing another human and would mess their pants if given the opportunity to really do it) or spends a long time in jail, giving employment to a whole host of jailers and associated personnel.

    And the guy who does that gets nothing (other than 2 hots, one cold and a cot, at best) in return.  All those people getting rich off him and he gets nothing.

    Ayn Rand had it right when she called it "throwing your pearls before swine and not even getting a pork chop in return", and she was right to castigate the stupid, unselfish people who did that.  They are suckers.

    Are you a sucker?

    Are you so stupid as to enrich the people making your life miserable, while getting nothing (but abuse) in return?

    Are you willing to give your life away for nothing?

    If you are, then you are every bit as guilty as the people at the top doing the oppressing because you're the one giving them (not selling them, not trading to them for equal value) riches beyond measure and getting for yourself nothing in return.  And for being that kind of sucker, you deserve to be exploited.

    A little thought shows that creative selfishness results in non-violence.

    And your blather about 2d Amendment being as important as 1st Amendment has a technical legal name.  I can't use it here because TL will censor me for using bad words.  Ask the folks in NOLA what happened to their 2d Amendment rights when Katrina showed up.  They went out the window.

    The core problem anyone not a cop or soldier will have with what the Teabaggers called "second amendment remedies" is twofold.  First, the ordinary civilian does not know when to shoot and will hesitate because they're civilized.  They  feel some residual sense of fellow-man-hood and  will wait too long or freeze up or otherwise balk at the idea of killing, while cops and soldiers will not.  They're told when to shoot and follow orders reflexively.  Second, the ordinary civilian knows that if and when the ordinary civilian opens up on the government, his life is over.  And he doesn't want that.

    So, stop talking smack.


    I have no intention of starting anything (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    because I realize that the governmental forces have all the firing power.  But I will protect myself and my loved ones if they come after us first.

    I leave you with a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

    "Every generation needs a new revolution."
    "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."
    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

    Is it better to use non-violent protest, along with the voting booth (although that will take a lot of time, and probably a viable third party), to effect change?  Without question.  I would never go armed to any kind of protest.  I didn't go armed to anti-Vietnam War protests.  But if things seriously fall apart, and the government begins armed actions against its citizens, will I sit quietly and wait to be killed?  No.  


    When protecting myself and my home (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:15:56 PM EST
    and children, I reserve the right to be very very dangerous :)  In protests like OWS, where we are demanding a return to a social norm of being sane and humane and we are up against the existing inhumane crazy power structure and think tanks that we have...I think the only way we win this one is by strict adherence to nonviolent social disobedience.  No weapons, then it is a double blow to those destroying humane society when we are attacked and the whole world is watching.  We claim we are the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, so let the world see it!

    Make a point of remembering how (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    the people of the old East Germany overthrew one of the most pervasive police states ever:  nonviolently.

    Every demonstration they had - and the "monday Demonstrations" in Leipzig doubled in size every week until hundreds of thousands were demonstrating - was led by banners stating "Keine Gewalt" - "no violence".  And a strict non-violence credo was in effect.  It went so far that after a while the higher officers in the police and military had to advise the government that they could not count on their troops to open fire if ordered, because the troops recognized they would be firing on non-violent protesters.  And this in the face of deliberate violent provocation by the Stasi, thugging it up.

    Also remember that that movement grew out of their church-led peace movement of the mid- to late 80s, concerned (rightly) about the old East Germany turning into a nuclear battlefield between the Soviets and us.  Because of the way their laws were written and the pervasive surveillance, they started their demonstrations as people out for a Sunday afternoon walk, who just happened to be all walking in the same direction on the same streets while praying for peace while strictly obeying all traffic lights and signs and definitely staying on the sidewalk.

    Once they pulled that off, they went bigger.  And in May or June of 1989 when the predetermined results of the municipal elections leaked a couple days before the elections took place, that was the final shove that pushed the movement into action.

    But it was strict non-violence, even in the face of violent attacks from their government, that made it work.

    No wonder, then, that a comprehensive history of that movement and how it worked has never been published in English.  It would not do for us to know how to do it.  I got it from daily listening to and reading German language radio and text during the full year of 2009, the 20th anniversary of all of it happening.


    That's pretty much how I feel (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    Go to the protests absolutely non-violently.  But if the government escalates and comes after us here (or if anyone with bad intentions does, for that matter), Mama Lion takes over, and in that case, I think we should be prepared to protect ourselves.  Do I realistically think it will get that bad in this country?  No.  But do I absolutely, categorically discount the possibility?  Not really, not the way our rights and civil liberties have been eroded, bit by bit, over the years.

    Violence is wrong... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    but self-defense is right, and an inalienable right of all living things.

    You do your best to turn the other cheek, but when a jackboot is literally on your neck?

    I have great respect for MLK, but I also have great respect for Huey Newton.  When the police invaded his home and pulled a shotgun on him and his family, he said it is time to bear arms and give myself half a chance...and I can't argue with that.


    You think the jackboots weren't (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:11:40 PM EST
    on the necks of the peaceful CR marchers in the 1960s?  Yet they didn't respond in kind, and look at what they eventually accomplished.

    Can the same be remotely said of the Panthers and Newton?


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    I just can't fault Newton for trying his way...it's a lot to ask of anybody to just eat that kinda brutality.  MLK was a true wonder to do it, and such a great leader to keep his followers from fighting violence with violence.

    Somebody with a badge pulls a shotgun on my family on the regular?  I ain't gonna be in no mood for no kumbaya brodie.  Granted this protest movement against oligarchal economic conditions isn't so bad to justify a widespread violent response...but god forbid it could come to that if it continues to grow and the authorities get nastier serving the oligarchs.


    An easy way to be non-violent (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:53:19 AM EST
    In the moment, ask yourself:  "how satisfying will it feel, while sitting in a jail cell 30 days from now with the legal process just getting under way?"

    It takes presence of mind, but it works really well.  Like one of the other commenters said upthread "if you can't control yourself, someone will control you."


    Banksters can't control themselves... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    apparently, who is controlling them?  Not those whose job description includes keeping banksters under control...that leaves the task to we the people.

    If a few windows get busted in the process, that is unfortunate but I'm certainly not gonna shed tears for broken windows...I'll shed tears for a broken middle and working class, tears for the poor, tears for the bruised and maced and gassed protestors..iow broken people.  


    Just remember (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    the characters in "American Psycho" - the junior-ish Ivy I-bankers from the 80s, comparing the raised intaglio printing on their business cards ("It's bone....), posing, drugging and all the rest  - are now the people in charge.  Both in the financial houses and the regulatory agencies.

    You expect them to control themselves?  You expect sanity?



    Paul Volcker can control himself (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    He remembers a time when bankers had a little self control.

    That's why Volcker has no seat at the table. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    I think we have to get busted (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    hopefully in huge quantities over and over and over again.  I have no fear of it.  The existing power must understand that they have all gone too far now and there really isn't anything else left for us to fear.  What is a little jail time compared to their existing plan where we are all their slaves for the rest of our lives and it can't be helped ?  It can be helped!  It will be!

    Add... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    there is nothing satisfying about a cage scribe...talking a non-violent stand feels good, sure...but cages?  Nothing feels good about being an animal in the zoo....those who accept a cage as part of non-violent civil disobedience are also better men and women than I.

    While I Agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    We haven't had violence in the streets in decades, with a couple exceptions, and who has won to date ?  Us or them ?

    Pretty sure we would not be trampling through Asia running kazillion dollar debts had OBL not used violence.

    I'm not suggesting it, but acting like violence doesn't work is more than a bit naive, it works very well, it's why they use it, it why wars are wagged.

    But the most effective cure is making a zillion dollars and buying legislation.  Because no matter what, they control the people that control us.  And that's won't change, violence or not.  

    Never have the wealthy not ruled the world.


    I don't like any one smeared (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    And I don't remember any Tea Party people breaking windows, etc.

    So it ain't the same.

    Peaceful is peaceful. There is no middle ground.


    People show up who say they are with (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    you and they aren't.  It happened in Egypt too, members of the regime showed up posing as protesters and then began being violent and destructive trying to incite violence against the protest.  Oakland OWS cleaned up the graffiti and gave to money to pay for windows even though the "violent" ones were unknown to them.  Most of the protesters over time get to know each other, plan, and organize together, and they didn't know who the violent people were.  I wonder who they were?

    You "don't REMEMBER" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    ... any Tea Party people breaking windows, etc."

    Heh ... as if that's supposed to mean something.  Hannity tries that "I don't remember ..." BS too - it just means he doesn't know.

    But if you want to deny the OWS protesters their right to protest because of the actions of one or a few, maybe we should do the same for the Tea Party.  No breaking windows, I guess ... they prefer to stomp on women's heads.

    "Peaceful is peaceful.  There is no middle ground", right?



    Just selective memories. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    Or, head stomping doesn't count, nor does bringing guns to rallies.    And, no one seems to remember guys like Donald Segretti, Nixon's dirty tricks guy and agent provocateur.  Segretti served  4 l/2 years in federal prison for his efforts. And, that the one percent would never dream of fighting back, in anything but in keeping with the Marquess of Queensberry rules. So there is no possibility, whatsoever, that such tactics could be used to undermine public support for Occupy.

    Let me know (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    but nothing you write about has anything to do with the Tea party demos..........

    And if you want to endorse violence and destruction then be my guest;


    Nothing to do with the TP? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    In reality, of course it does.  The subject of the news clip I posted (Tim Profitt) is a fellow Tea Partier.

    But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit that, as well as why you phrased your response the way you did ("I don't remember ...")



    Heh and heh (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    I asked on Google, "Is Tim Profitt a member of the Tea Party."

    Here are two of the hits.

    The man who threw Valle to the ground is allegedly Mike Pezzano, says blogger Lisa Grass. An anonymous "tea party" activist alleges that Pezzano was the brute in the checkered shirt assaulting the wigged woman


    Now, the Tea Party supporter


    I'm kinda busy this AM but I scanned 20 or so others and never found an answer that id'd him as a member. If you can, please show us. But please, no anonymous.......

    On the other hand, when it comes to lynching SC Justices...

    This is definitive.

    Peaceful, eh?


    Ohhhhhhh ... so you have to have ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    ... a membership card to be part of the Tea Party, huh, Jim?  Maybe a secret decoder ring?  I guess that means the OWS protesters can't be held responsible person(s) who broke the windows, right, Jim?  Those people haven't even been identified, let alone identified as members of the OWS party, so I guess if we use your standard, there's no responsibility.


    But keep trying to ignore the obvious - that Rand Paul is a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party and Profitt was one of his local campaign leaders.   The NY Post article (favorite winger-source just for you) I linked to clearly identifies him as a Tea Party supporter, and he's further identified as a "Tim Proffitt, a local Tea Party leader and prominent Rand Paul supporter".

    Since you're running short on time and "can't remember" Tea Party violence, I'll take 30 seconds to Google a few examples for you.

    Then there's the clearly unhinged Tea Partiers threatening violence at rallies .... Tea Partiers threatening to use guns to stop health care reform ... making comments on Facebook supporting the lynching of homosexuals, ...

    ... I could find many more, but you get the idea.

    "Peaceful is peaceful.  There is no middle ground".



    Well, we all know (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:16:40 AM EST
    threats are bad, see the Lynch Thomas video, there is a difference between a mob destroying property and threats.

    I trust you understand that.

    As for Profitt, alas and alack I see nothing that proves he is a member.

    Can you do better??

    Perhaps you can call him and ask, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party."

    In the meantime my BS decoder ring has told me Profitt has been convicted.

    Let me know when the people at Oakland have the cell door slammed on them.

    And no, we have no membership cards. Secret hand shake??? No. But we do a quick jump, three hip bumps and a laugh every time we watch MSNBC's left wing minions.


    Gotta go now.


    I understand why you have to go (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    Well, we all know threats are bad, see the Lynch Thomas video, there is a difference between a mob destroying property and threats.

    Really?  Whatever happened to "Peaceful is peaceful.  There is no middle ground".

    As for Profitt, alas and alack I see nothing that proves he is a member.

    Of course you don't.  You don't "remember", you don't "see", ... heeeeeeeey, ... is your last name Schultz?

    But since you're ignoring the links and the fact that Profitt was listed as a TP leader and attending an event held by the TP-endorsed Ron Paul campaign (his name was also in an ad for the event), let's consider your standard.  You deny Tim Profitt's membership in the TP because you don't "see" it, yet you condemn all the OWS protesters for the actions of a few who are completely unidentified, and for which there is zero evidence they are OWS members.  It's particularly interesting that you want the guys to "have the cell door slammed on them" for breaking some windows, while your fellow Tea Partier merely gets probation for stomping on the head of a woman.

    Perfect illustration of the TP mentality.



    You know, all you have/had (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    to do is copy the information, include it in your comment and link to it.

    Doesn't seem all that hard to me.

    That you didn't just shows you just want to snark.



    You know, all you have to do (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 05, 2011 at 07:27:27 AM EST
    ... is click on the links and read.

    Doesn't seem that hard to me.



    Do you hear yourself, jim? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    You are heartily defending the Tea Party against accusations that their members have committed violence at their "protests," while at the same time you are making the same kinds of accusations against the Occupy protesters - all on the basis of "newspaper reports" and "police statements," which we all know cannot be taken as gospel.

    In other words, I think there a big mug of steaming hot STFU with your name on it.


    Dear Anne (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    While violence is violence, there is a huge difference between one individual attacking another and a mob leveling violence on property and people.

    And since you don't seem to be able to understand that, your STFU nasty is forgiven the same way I forgive children who haven't a clue.

    And yes, the evidence was convincing.


    Because of course ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    ... it is much worse to damage property than an individual's person.  Because that was only a person.  If it were "property and people" that would be bad.

    You should just stop.  You're back to being a self-parody.  When someone backs you into a corner using your own words you become abusive.  It would be better to take a time-out.


    Actually, someone worked very hard and (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:37:32 PM EST
    made great sacrifices in order for them to own the property.

    Why you think that this is meaningless is beyond me.

    And I would note that, once again, in this case Anne, decided to lay the F bomb on me.

    I'm not now or have I ever been in the mood to be someone's victim. If you have an actual thought that refutes my point re property rights, let me know.


    Their namesakes... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    the original tea party, destroyed property, breaking and entering...multiple felonies!  And god bless them for that!

    "If you cannot control yourself" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    "sooner or later, someone will control you".

    Tell that to the 1%.

    It's finally sinking into you what the Occupy movement is about, I see.


    When large groups of people gather, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    especially in such a public venue, there is always potential for trouble; for example, as kdog has pointed out, TeaParty gatherings have not been without their violent moments.  Perhaps this slipped your mind.

    And for the person who snidely referred to Oakland as the "home of the 1%," people protest where they can, and clearly, there are a lot of 99%-ers in the Oakland area.

    From alternet:

    As many as 15,000 people participated in actions across Oakland yesterday, with small marches peeling off to protest in front of banks or "occupy" foreclosed homes. There were probably eight to ten times the number of people in the streets of Oakland today as I'd seen during past OWS actions. Police maintained a minimal presence throughout the day. There were a few scattered acts of vandalism -- windows were broken at two banks but there was no violence, and the protests were remarkably up-beat throughout the day. But that changed when night fell as the streets of Oakland once again resonated with the sharp cracks of tear gas canisters and "less lethal" projectiles being fired, and flash-bang grenades scattering the crowd.

    As per usual, though, the violence at the end of the day did what violence always does: buries the lede:

    But first: did a small group of activists manage in just 5 short days of organizing to bring about the first general strike in the United States in generations?

    Not exactly. But while there was no broad, city-wide general strike of the sort last seen in this country in 1946, the effort was anything but a failure. A day of scattered actions across the city culminated in a massive "occupation" that shut down the Port of Oakland, the fifth busiest container port in the country. When it was announced that operations had been suspended for the night, thousands of people partied around trucks halted in their tracks, celebrating a victory in their struggle with authorities that began with the violent eviction of Occupy Oakland last week. The Oakland police, and Mayor Jean Quan, stung by negative press stemming from the clashes, essentially gave the port to the movement.

    Since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947, unions have been forbidden from participating in general strikes, but there was no doubt that the longshoremen were firmly on the side of the protesters. The occupiers arrived in waves, and at first small groups blocked the entrances to port facilities, letting workers out at the end of their shifts, but preventing their replacements from taking the next shift. One by one, longshoremen arrived to find a picket line blocking their entrance. In every case, they expressed solidarity -- honking their horns and in some instances getting out and talking to the protesters, and then pulled a u-turn and went home -- their contracts specified that they wouldn't be required to work if there was a disturbance at the port.


    A group of high school students told me that their principal had circulated a memo giving them the day off. Calls to the school district to find out today's attendance figures weren't returned at press time, but the Los Angeles Times reported that 16 percent of the city's teachers didn't show up for work. There were many children and young people in the crowd, many attended by their parents.

    As much as you want it to be, the news coming out of Oakland is not the violence; it's 15,000 people in the streets, in the middle of the week, to protest the oligarchy in hopes of getting their democracy back.


    Ridiculous comment. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Addison on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    Just ridiculous. Pro-violence black bloc anarchists have been leeches on successful protests for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure back into the early 90's and 80's as well. This was a foreseeable problem, perhaps, but the Occupy people are not anarchists. The anarchists aren't protesters, they are opportunistic play-acting destroyers -- their tactic is their message such as it is.

    Oh please! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Madeline on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    The drama of "This is anarchy. Pure and simple." Breaking windows and writing on some buildings by some kids or angry adults is not anarchy. These small contingents of vandals join every protest.

    Close to anarchy is the Tea Beggers carrying in the National Mall, their Brownings strapped to their side, chests, backs and legs.  And that picture you posted of the guy that 'was going to protect his property (more right wing drama)if they came any closer. He's just blow them away. Then here you are trying to build more divisiveness by claiming anarchy.

    The may very well be anarchy, (civil disobedience with out government authority/control) if there aren't some major changes. As it should be.


    Hey! More work for the glaziers! (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    I once lived in a town where an auto glass guy got in a bind.  Seems his teenage relative - nephew, I think - decided to stir up some business.  So, he and a couple buds used to walk the streets late at night with a bent-open coathanger wrapped around a spark plug, popping windows and windshields.
    There was the implication that the auto glass guy was behind it, but it was never proven.

    the photos of the window breaking that I saw (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    at the link showed one guy, in his faux-ninja get-up, doing the smashing, with all the rest of the crowd yards away. The close ring surrounding him look like press and photogs

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    it was more than just one guy

    "masked vandals" (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    not protesters.  

    Not NECESSARILY protestors (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    But, is a reasonable person going to stop and ask - "Hey, are you a protestor or are you just here to cause trouble?"

    Yes, they are going to ask that (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    It's pretty much common knowledge here (Bay Area) that the masked vandals were/are just that, masked vandals and not protesters. They have a history of showing up at others' protests and causing trouble.

    both the photos and the vifeos (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    show JUST ONE GUY strolling down the sidewalk breaking about 5-7 plate glass windows with a baseball bat. It is very clear.

    Its a fair question (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:48:46 AM EST

    Its a fair question as to whether a business closed to support the protest, or to avoid spray paint and/or broken windows and/or injuries to employees, or to avoid paying employees on a day when there would likely be little business.  Perhaps a mix of those motivations was in play.


    Rubber Bullets (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    are considered a "safe deterrent"  by riot police for use on protesters.



    Does that mean they should be considered safe for use on riot police by protesters?

    Wikipedia: Rubber Bullets

    The rubber riot control bullet is part of a long line of development of non-lethal riot control cartridges that dates back to the use of short sections of broom handle fired at rioters in Singapore in the 1880s.
    In some countries non-lethal guns firing rubber projectiles may be used by civilians for protection.

    Much safer than (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    using CS gas on infants and children in confined spaces.
    The secrete is a good PR team. Dehumanize the protesters. Perception is everything. When they become filthy, violent, destructive, pick an adjective, things it's safe to use pretty much any method available to eradicate them and folks will cheer on their demise.

    Two bad things (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sj on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    Do you think there is no possibility of those rubber bullets reaching children and babies?  

    Just saying.


    I expect there is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Rojas on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    We will blame their parents.

    why not? (none / 0) (#75)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:38:53 PM EST
    Why exactly are parents taking children and babies to areas with the potential of tear gas and rubber bullets?  

    Why exactly (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:45:13 PM EST
    should police shoot tear gas and rubber bullets into peaceful groups of people containing children and babies?

    Dehumanize the protesters? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    Don't need to.

    The people who are protesting the Occupy Movement are dehumanizing themselves already.

    This is a tough one for the Oligarchs. Really. I can't imagine their contingency plans, and all their think tanks could have come up with this. They expected the riots of 66 and 68, or perhaps they envisioned a charismatic leader who they could discredit. Or assassinate.

    Leaderless. Peaceful. Powerful. Old. Young. Right wing. Left wing. Centrists. Black. Latino. White. Asian. Straight. Gay. Military. Anti-war. Blue collar. White collar.

    Most of all? Numerous. Really f*cking numerous.

    And this, my dears, it the tip of the iceberg.
    The stressors that have caused our rising to the streets all have a common base, indeed. Old to young, we are in dire economic straights, even thought the manifestations of our complaints are as varied as our racial, religious, political and personal views are.

    They cannot blame hippies. They cannot blame people of color. They cannot blame students. They cannot blame veterans as Un-American traitors. There are no easy targets. They cannot blame the youth, when Grandparents without Health Care are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Middle-aged unemployed and those with new PHD's and no work.

    Oh, there are individuals and even groups with valid complaints that still feel isolated or slighted by the movement. There is irony, indeed in the fact that once white-bread middle class has begun to suffer the conditions people of color have endured for centuries, suddenly we give a damn. But I think the streets themselves will fix that.

    We are first and foremost citizens that live in the United States whose voices and means of living an unmolested, stable future have been stripped of us.
    They have no cure for what we are to them. They will try everything, but they will fail.

    Nothing runs in this body humana without the millions of tiny individual-cells that comprise its function. You, me, that guy you never met over there, that woman holding a baby. If they cut off one head, surely two shall grow to takes its place. We are a Hydra of 7 BILLION to their few thousand.

    Revolution has gone Viral, my friends. There is no cure they can apply, be it violent or punitive. We hold all the Power.

    2012: There is Only One Cure