FLAIT

While I fully support the Occupy Wall Street protestors, I do have issues with their tactics. Protesting is one thing. But I don't believe they should be allowed to take over public parks, set up tents and move in. No one should be allowed to live in a park or any public place. The homeless wouldn't, so why protestors (last winter's union protestors in Madison, Wisconsin shouldn't have been allowed to stay overnight inside the Capitol either)?

Even if the protestors get permission to live in the park, isn't that the same favoritism that the powerful corporations and wealthy receive every day? So you can't protest the powerful corporations and the wealthy for getting unfair preferential treatment when you're getting it yourself (assuming they are). And if the protestors remain in the park without permission, then that's the sort of selfish arrogance they're supposedly protesting.

Even though these protests are going to have to continue indefinitely before anything gets accomplished, who said a protest - even one with "occupy" in its title - had to be permanent? Besides, who wants to live in a park forever, especially when it can hurt the cause? Because the longer the protestors remain in the in the park, the more the public will want their park back and small businesses will want their customers back. And that's no way to build support.

So what I think OWS should do, is move out of the parks and schedule protests a few days in advance at different times at different places for different durations; ranging from a short 30 minute lunch demonstration to a protest lasting a few hours. They can be scheduled based on weather conditions (no sense scheduling a protest in a rain or snow storm) and coordinated with protests in other cities (or not).

There can be two protests/demonstrations/marches one day, four the next day, one the next day, none the day after that, and three the day after that. Whatever. But one massive protest, just one, should be scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays. As the weeks go by, they would get bigger and bigger.

I think by scheduling roving "99% protests" at different locations at different times on different days would not only bring more favorable attention and more protestors to the cause, but also give the parks back to the public and send customers back to small businesses. And that would help build public support as well.

November 18 insert:

Just because you have a right to burn the American flag, or the Koran, it doesn't mean you should. So just because you have a right to live in Zuccotti park, be it without tents and supplies, it doesn't mean you should.

Excessive force by the cops aside, some of the protestors at Zuccotti Park, in Oakland and other cities around the country have taken their right to assemble peacefully and turned it into a defiant stand against authority just for the sake of doing so. Politicians do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Always. That's why the country's in the shape it's in. I was hoping the OWS protestors were smarter then that.

If the city wants the protestors to leave the park so it can be cleaned, then leave. What's the big deal? Nobody prevented the protestors from returning.

Then again, if federal prosecutors went after the Wall Street bankers responsible for crashing the economy with half the aggression mayors and cops are going after the OWS protestors, none of this would be necessary.

That said, living in the park, getting into clashes with police (right or wrong), getting arrested, and shutting down parts of the city will turn the public against OWS and its cause. And then OWS will be stuck with the number of protestors they have, and support will never grow they way it could, should and needs to.

Republicans and the right have called the protestors "mobs" and "anarchists." So the civil disobedience plays right into their hands as well.

So just because protestors are allowed to occupy the park, it doesn't mean they should, especially when it can be counterproductive.

Not to pick on OWS, but selfishness - where your side is always right and never does anything wrong - has become a national epidemic. Pick an issue...unions, guns, gays, abortion, religion, spending, taxes, Israel/Palestinians... Or a side...liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican... Everyone defends their side to a fault. They never concede a single point to the other, even a minor one, and never admit when their side is wrong or does something wrong by feigning incredulity, ignoring the hypocrisy (if applicable) and using deception.

Give me the person who's honest enough to admit when his side is wrong. It doesn't mean he's changed his mind on the issue, and it doesn't mean the other side is now right. All it means is that, in a particular instance, he's admitting his side is wrong.

If only we had more honesty like that in the country.

December 1 insert:

A couple of weeks ago, New York OWS protestors held a noisy rally outside Mayor Bloomberg's home because he threw them out of Zuccotti park the week before (for a few hours).

Regardless of what Mayor Bloomberg does, or the cops, I think it's a mistake to protest them. Actually, they probably welcome protests like that because it makes them look like victims.

Protesting the right to protest or "getting back" at those who you think are not letting you exercise your rights peacefully is a step backwards; and a waste of time. And that's what Mayors and Wall Street executives want OWS doing.

So regardless of what mayors and cops do to disrupt OWS, they should not become the focus of the protests.

Matt Taibbi has an excellent column on the para-military like response to OWS and other protests, class justice (and injustice), and how we've allowed the government to systematically erode our civil liberties, no questions asked.

Speaking of other protests, I wanted to comment on the students at UC Davis who took a page from OWS by occupying campus grounds and were pepper sprayed while protesting escalating tuition costs.

What I noticed was what the protestors were wearing, and how they were wearing it. They were all bundled up in sweatshirts, some hooded. I also noticed that the protestors didn't flinch much at all while being sprayed.

What I take from the way they were dressed, how they were dressed and the way they reacted to the macing (they didn't), leads me to think that they were looking for a confrontation (and get maced).

Anyone looking for a confrontation with the police, right or wrong, even protesting peacefully, can't complain when they get into one; especially when it looks as if they were warned that they would be pepper sprayed, right or wrong.

So assuming these protestors were looking for a confrontation, what does getting pepper sprayed have to do with rising tuition?

Now for the cops.

These protestors, students actually, were just sitting there, posing no threat whatsoever, to anyone. And they weren't in tents. So what the hell were the cops even doing there? With mace? Wearing riot helmets?

Just being there, with mace, wearing helmets, gives more attention and credibility to the protestors and their cause. Had the cops not been there, the protestors would have barely been noticed. It would have been like, "who are those idiots sitting on the path?" And nothing would have happened. So there's times when protestors can and should be ignored.

Maybe the cops were there because they were looking for a confrontation too. And if it's wrong for protestors to want a confrontation, then it's also wrong when cops go looking for one as well.

It appeared that the protestors were sitting on a walking path, which I assume leads to a building. And since the building was probably closing at the time, they could have sat there all weekend if they wanted. What would have been the big deal? At least it wouldn't have been a big deal until Monday morning when they would have had to get off the path so students and faculty could get to the building.

But if the protestors refused to move, then what? And this is where OWS comes in. Does the "right to protest peacefully" mean you can block a walking path as long as you're not violent? A main street? Fifth Avenue? Of course not.

Having been allowed to sit there all weekend, would the protestors have moved if the cops arrived at 7:00 Monday morning and asked them to? I don't know, especially if they were indeed looking for a confrontation.

Regardless of what's being protested, this is where protestors - even peaceful protestors - should wise up. You can't block a path, road or major thoroughfare. When the cops ask you to move, then move. What's the big deal?

Under no circumstances should you lock arms and be willing to take the consequences just for the sake of getting into a confrontation with police. Again, it'll accomplish nothing, take attention away from the objective, and in OWS's case, turn the public against the cause.

This notion that protestors are not allowed to "back down" to the cops because it'll look bad is ridiculous. Moving when the cops tell you to move will not hurt the cause. Quite the opposite in fact.

So just because you think protestors can never do any wrong, it doesn't mean blocking a path peacefully - or road or major thoroughfare - is right.