Occupy Wall Street

Healing

/ JillArcangela / Leave a comment

I suffered a significant and highly personal loss recently.  It was the reason I did not write for a couple of weeks.  It was not the loss of a relative, a friendship, or even a favorite item.  It was a loss of a different kind, one that stole away more the promises of things to come than the presence of things existing.  Loss is a powerful thing.  It can be devastating if it isn’t eye opening.  There is beauty in it, however, in that through loss we can experience healing.

Often when I write, I bang the verbal gavel, ranting about the deformity of our political system and transformation we slept through.  I stoke the fires of independent thought, rude awakening, and the necessity of a focused drive on roads paved with subtle rage.  I play on your senses to bring you into “this” moment, the breaking point, the sucker punch of reality, to shake you up enough to experience a tingling in your toes that makes you want to march.  At least, this is what I am attempting to do.  Truth be told, however, I wonder if I often absent-mindedly omit the point.

True, the nation is a barn on fire.  True, we are to blame.  True, we need to rally ourselves in fashion of the torch carrying mobs of old who sought the beast that preyed upon our sheep.  That is a zest that we must have in order to overcome the great obstacles that stand between us and justice, but at the root of all things feisty and powerful Occupy has to be about healing.

The heart of the nation has been dealt a blow that not only offends, it hurts.  As the dialogue we have opened grows louder and more revealing, we learn that the crimes being committed and the social-assassins who write the laws decriminalizing them have created a situation that is not solely unjust.  It is a political and economic death sentence.  It is, however, supported and workable only through a much deeper social ill.  It is one we are all carriers of, with no one to blame for our contamination but ourselves, and one that only we can cure.

When Abraham Lincoln spoke of the days now upon us, he warned that the “money power would endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people” as it concentrated the wealth and destroyed the Republic.  It is the old divide-and-conquer tactic, and it is still working despite our efforts.  Like a dragon with too heads, we make our advances on the one that seems the most imminent threat while lashing at the second, more docile head only when we have the opportunity.  We must, however, understand which is the more dangerous of the two if we intend to put the beast down for good.

Occupy’s continued front that focuses on the issues is powerful and important.  It keeps us active in the political spectrum, pressures the powers that be, and supercharges us with the conductivity that motors us forward.  We must, however, balance our attack and engage the second head of the beast, the tactical head which undermine us as a people by playing upon our prejudices.  Being a beast of a different manner, we must fight it with a different weapon.  In this case, we must fight division with connection.

Now, before we go trooping off to fight the windmill, let’s take a minute to understand the problem.  Division, you see, is part of our human nature.  At an early age we begin to categorize ourselves and our existence, seeking out circles that share our values and interests.  It starts at birth with geography and spirituality, continues to whittle us into jocks and Mathletes around middle-school, and eventually we end up adults so divided that we can be mapped and color coded on political news shows.  The true continental divide is between red states and blue states, and while we are not a movement associated with either party, we are struggling to recruit from the right.  The question becomes: how do we bring 99% of the population onto the same page when we aren’t even on the same planet?

Recently, many of the Occupy groups have taken to the streets, but not with signs and megaphones.  Instead, they have walked into the quiet streets of broken communities with brooms, food, and helping hands.  Cleaning up vacant lots, pancake breakfast fundraisers, and garden planning are just a few of the outreach projects being carried out nationwide.  The continued anti-foreclosure events have also brought Occupy into better, more illuminating light with many communities.  But there are many more opportunities to reach even further.

Countless people, in areas far from the cities we occupy, need of the same types of outreach.  Moreover, they belong to populations that see themselves as politically opposite to the liberally painted Occupy movement.  They are typically Republican and influenced by powerful media sources that oppose the movement.  These rural dwellers often vote for the values they falsely believe are hailed by the fast-talking manipulators of Wall and K Streets, but those votes are unwittingly cast against their interests.  These areas, these people are the ones we need to work harder to connect with.

Whether it is organizing bus trips to town meeting and other events, getting involved in the unions common in rural areas, paying closer attention to the perils their schools face, finding local causes for which to fundraise or volunteer, or setting up small tables outside of area grocery stores with information and timely petitions, we must reach these people.  The large gaps that distance our cities are not voids.  They are filled with people who are among our 99%.  We must include them, hear them, and respect them.

It is only through directed effort that we will reach those outside our cities, only through practice that we will learn to hear through our differences, and only with open minds and outstretched hands that we will bridge the distance between us.  If we intend to cure the ills that plague us politically, we must start by curing that which ails us socially.  We must work through prejudice and unite ourselves with people who live outside our urban reality in a world unlike ours but not so far away.  This is how we collapse the tactic that truly dominates us.  This is how we unite the 99%.  This is how we heal the nation.

 

 

Anecdote: The Egg Man

I buy my eggs from a farmer who lives just over an hour from my perch on the rim of Philadelphia.  My two-year-old calls him “The Egg Man,” but his name is Bart.  Bart is burley man with a full white beard and rosy cheeks.  He is pleasant and good-humored, smart and polite, and unafraid to tell you what is on his mind, if you inquire.  He is open-minded, objective, and non-judgmental.  He is also a die-hard Republican.  He believes in hard work, conservative ideals, and letting business do its business.  That last part sounds like a campaign ad, right?  Except that when Bart says “hard work” he means earning a fair wage with fair work.  When he says “conservative,” he means conservation; and when he says “business” he means his eggs and my three bucks.

Bart is the middle-American Republican standard, and he’s a far cry from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.  He knows the Republicans in D.C. are not representing him and his interests, but he also knows that the left has not encouraged the values he is so firmly rooted in.  He is just as frustrated and despondent as we are, but he feels no connection to the movement because there is no one picketing outside his fence.  His only exposure to the movement is our bi-weekly chat.  He is leaning in favor of our ideology.  He sees the bigger picture but is skeptical because he doesn’t see the point of Occupy.  He doesn’t witness any impact from our efforts, and he is still getting his news from Fox.  So, how do we reach him?  How can we convince and engage Bart, “The Egg Man,” from rural Pennsylvania?

For homework, answer this question in outline format and implement it in a rural area near you.  Extra credit will go to Occupants who effectively drum up rural support.

Work In Progress

/ JillArcangela / 4 Comments

Critics and naysayers love to ask the “tough questions” about Occupy, striving to stump or embarrass us.  What they fail to realize, and what was incredibly apparent during this past weekend’s Northeast Regional Meeting, is that no one is asking tougher questions about Occupy than the Occupiers.

Walking into the meeting, I saw surprised at the incredible mix of people there.  I’ve marched with Occupy in Philadelphia, seen GAs via live stream and countless photos of occupations nationwide.  I’ve noted the diversity before, but nothing is quite so intimate and surprising as walking into a 20’x20’ room and shaking hands with 80 year olds and teenagers, hippies and bikers, long haired guys and buzz cut women, professors and janitors, residents of Society Hill, and people who sleep on benches all before finding a seat.  In fact, the only thing that most of these people had in common was their shared belief that our system has gone insane and needs to be 302ed.

After a long introduction and some fun and introspective group exercises, we moved on to do the work of the day.  Our mission was to discuss, in small groups, topics we think are important to the movement.  First, we had to determine what those topics would be, so we were asked to make suggestions.  The numerous proposals revealed a variety of powerful issues.  Everything from “what do we do with the farm this guy gave us?” to “where are we taking this movement?” and “how do we get there?” to “how do we confront agitators?” came to the table.

With incredible patience and an unbelievable amount of respect, we managed to whittle the intimidating list down to several groups by folding similar ideas together and relating our individual focuses to broader spectrums.  The process was a bit long and tedious, but we sighed with pride and relief when it was over.  We took a breather, ate some lunch, networked and chatted, shared amazing stories and ideas, and returned to meet our groups with clear heads and full tummies.

The group I worked with was focused on the national goals and the organization required to accomplish them.  People raised questions and ideas that centered on things like improving communications between camps, honing a unified message, coordinating localized efforts, creating powerful political change at all levels of government, and developing regional and national working groups.  Some people spoke from logical stand points in calm and down-to-business voices as they suggested improvements to our networks, websites, and conference calls.  Others spoke in voices teeming with passion and threw around expressive hands, talking about things like “guerrilla gardening” and street art.  Still others pointed out necessities like controlling our narrative and avoiding media coopting, reaching greater numbers of people, and creating meaningful statements and documents.

The array of insights and visions was awe-inspiring and simultaneously daunting.  We realize that we have some serious work to be done.  Not just work on our government, but work on our movement.  If we are going to get inside this beast and make the changes we understand to be critical for the future of our nation, we have to be more than loud.  We have to do more than march.  We have to build more than an idea.  We have to plan, inspire, educate, and coordinate.  We have to broader our vision while narrowing our focus.  And we have to keep returning to meetings like this one.

Our time to work in our topic groups was limited, and the process that got us there was trying, but we are learning.  In every action and every GA, at this regional meeting and at the many that we know must follow, we are finding our way through the complexities of direct democracy to become a living, breathing reality of change.  We realize that we don’t have to have all the answers today.  Just sitting together and sharing our thoughts is a revelation, but we also know that it isn’t enough.  We do have to find those answers, and we have to do it sooner than later.

As I try now to compile my thoughts, reach out to new contacts, and take advantage of new opportunities for involvement, I find myself feeling similar to how I felt looking at the mammoth list of pressing issues raised at the regional meeting.  The feeling is nothing short of overwhelming.  Tackling the task and backing it down to a manageable undertaking is not as daunting as it seems.  The key to success lies in the simplest lessons: take one step at a time; listen to others; take advice in earnest; learn from past experience; and above all remember that this is a work in progress.

Any artist, any writer, anyone who creates something for a living (or just for the sheer pleasure in it) will tell you that our greatest work is never done.  There are always things that can be done, visions to be intensified, thoughts to be clarified, systems to be perfected.  This is especially true in the case of our democracy.  Believing that the work was done, that we could sit back and let the cogs turn, is what got us into this mess.  So, we are as our nation is: a work in progress – always growing, always changing, always improving, and always searching for the answers to the tough questions.

Stepping Stone

/ JillArcangela / 2 Comments

With many of our camps packed up, at least for the winter, our reduced visibility is an issue for contention.  However, with regional and national coordination on the rise, we can start to hone in on what we need to accomplish and how.  Pressure from the outside to “boil it down” into a short list of statements is routinely rejected, and with good cause, but can we be all-encompassing and still generate distinguishable outgrowth?

The idea of creating a set of focused goals seems contradictory when working within a grassroots movement.  Moreover, an inventory of demands, not matter how thorough, could become a checklist for appeasement from our current political leaders, who would pass legislation only to repeal it after the “uprising” is disbanded.  Conversely, avoiding a list of solid messages and concrete objectives could translate as political ineptitude, stunted maturation, or just plain wishy-washy.

The trick is to move forward simply and become the organized extension of the people’s voice.  By participating in local politics, – backing or rejecting local and state legislation, becoming a consistent presence at meetings (from school boards to state committees), working with charities and social projects, and so forth – we can start to make ourselves a admissible political force.  We can be direct democracy in direct action with a representative Republic which has lately tuned its ear to the loudest voices in the room: the lobbyists.  In order to combat the forces in power (the corporations), we must infiltrate the system and create recognizable political change.

Occupations in urban (or town) areas must make a point to reach out into the suburbs (and rural communities).  We must bring our messages to those who don’t follow us on Twitter and who haven’t liked us on Facebook.  We must make our intentions known to them and hear their voices as well.  We must understand that connecting to everyone is essential to our mission.

By involving ourselves in local politics, we can push for the changes that we need within our communities and claim substantial victories for our movement.  We can reach out to the people who misunderstand or simply don’t connect with Occupy and increase our numbers, support, and strength.  We can begin to list the accomplishments of our movement in places where the world can see it: in legislation.  We can begin the hard work of changing our government by changing our approach to politics, raising awareness where there was illiteracy and involvement where there was absenteeism.

It is easy for those who man the battlements and protect the aristocracy with smug indignation to discredit us for our lack of order, our missing spokespersons, and our cries for justice scribbled on fragments of former refrigerator boxes.  What isn’t so easy is to contend with an organized movement that is forging real bonds with people in every nook and cranny of the country, that is uniting communities and marrying local people to the idea that they “can, too” make a difference, and that brings forth a sudden outpouring of consciousness and participation from their previously comatose constituents.

Apathy put us here.  We, as a nation, sipped the Kool-Aid and went numb on the couch; and sometime between Mork and Paris Hilton, bandits made off with the nation.  We were warned repeatedly by our leaders over two centuries about these types of criminal enterprises and how they would loosen the democracy, but we stopped teaching history with the depth it deserves to make time to practice for the standardized tests – something else that was lobbied into existence while we snored through our artificial-cheese powdered lips.

Marches build our solidarity and visibility.  Occupations symbolize our idyllic society.  Civil disobedience and our constant entanglement in their red tape can bankrupt the system which attempted to bankrupt us.  But it is through sincere and direct local political action that we will build the strength, character, experience, and support that we need to take this movement “to the house” (…of Representatives).

In time, we will amass the things we need to ready ourselves for our active restoration of this nation.  We will have rooted leadership, widespread support, and deep understanding of our local needs and national issues.  We will add these things to the treasure trove of strengths we already possess.  Combining our assets with profound and impacting accomplishments, we can move forward toward the ultimate goal: a truly free America in which we stand together as a citizenry fully conscious and taking responsibility for our democracy, our neighborhoods, and our future.

As a child, my mother always reminded me that I was a “pebble in a pool,” my actions rippling across the whole of my life and family.  I employ this fitting metaphor here.  We are the pebble, and our local actions are the first of many circles flowing outward to impact greater and greater space.  No matter how small it appears, even when compared to the vastness of the water it breaks, that one pebble can affect everything… even a nation.

The City of Brotherly Shove

/ JillArcangela / 6 Comments

I live just outside Philadelphia, and while I draw inspiration each week from occupations across the nation, I have participated in actions and general assemblies (via streaming video) with the Occupy Philly group.  This weekend was a big one for OP.  After months of peaceful occupation and tenuous cooperation with the city, the camp was issued an eviction notice at the end of last week.  The notice itself came as no surprise to the occupants, as construction was scheduled for Dilworth Plaza (the location of their camp).  With the group acting in direct defiance of the eviction order and staging a huge show of solidarity which was supported by hundreds of OP friendlies, surviving Sunday night completely unthreatened by the police forces surrounding the plaza was a bit more unexpected.  What was most amazing, however, was the internal struggle of the group’s conflicting political opinions and how they turned this conflict into palpable resolve.

 

There is a mix of facts and rumors still to be sorted into a full account of what actually happened to create the friction that plagued the group and culminated in a screaming match of a generally assembled debacle on Friday night.  The long and short of it is that a group called Reasonable Solutions, which spoke with the city on the group’s behalf in an attempt to negotiate the messy business that is urban occupation, began making decisions that didn’t accurately represent that consensus of the larger group.  Reasonable Solutions was able to procure an agreement from the city to move operations to a plaza across the street.  Significantly smaller in size, the plaza would support only what the permit allowed: three collapsible canopies to be assembled and removed – along with all persons and operations – in accordance with permitted hours (9 am to 7 pm).  Now, I have not been close enough to the situation to pass on any reliable details of it, nor would I speculate as I believe speculation is akin to gossip.  What the intentions of the individuals who comprised Reasonable Solutions were, are being debated by many.  Be they agitators from the upstart or those who paved the road to hell with their good intentions, I know not, and I presume nothing.  The end result, however, involved a permit the majority of occupants did not want, a megaphoned hijacking of an important general assembly, and a public statement by OP severing ties to the Reasonable Solutions subset.

 

While I marveled from my living room, watching the chaos unfold via live stream on Friday night with a repeat performance circumvented with relative dignity on Saturday evening, I couldn’t help but ask myself what the justification was for not leaving the plaza.  The construction would, after all, create lots of (short-term) employment for the union workers; it would beautify the city, create a space for concerts which raises local revenue, and create (though extremely limited in number) some employment for those maintaining and managing the space.  The cost was extraordinary but it was mostly grants that had to be spent a certain way, and it was being paid into the local groups building the space.  Blocking the project seemed short-sighted.  I sat back, however, and refrained from passing judgment until I had more perspective.  I followed closely during Saturday’s GA and tried to find the reasoning behind this campaign to resist eviction.  The meeting, however, was business as usual.  They made plans for the eviction and discussed and voted on several other items, none of which gave me any insight into the reason for the stand or the split.  Then the time came for the campers to pack their tents and move out.

 

On Sunday, the camp was prepared for eviction, and so were the campers.  With a backdrop that seemed naked compared to the previously colorful, packed, and bustling center of democratic fervor, the occupants of Philadelphia’s camp and their supporters sat down on the steps of Dilworth Plaza and awaited their eviction… and waited… and waited… and waited.  They waited all night.  They filled the time and space with voices, some expressing themselves in the echoes of comrades during an “open mic” and others cheered and sang through vibrant drumming that lasted well into the night.  People in camp visited the people outside of camp via the video stream, answering questions and chatting.  In the morning, the camp was quiet.  Not because it was empty, as so many thought it would be, but because it was sleeping – piled in greater concentration than ever before in the few remaining tents.

 

Somewhere between the locking of the arms moments before the scheduled eviction and the sound of post-midnight jubilance, I realized why these people chose to make this stand, to sacrifice a relatively peaceful experience, to throw away months of positive relations with the local police, and to risk bodily harm.  The answer was simple: the deal was not acceptable.

 

The city issued its original permit for a 24-hour occupation, permitted camping, portable toilets, electricity, and even reduced police presence to ensure that those wanting to approach the camp would feel comfortable doing so.  Suddenly, now that the city had to commence a $50 million dollar project, that only stands to create 20 full-time jobs and promises to disrupt the lives of hundreds of homeless citizens, a restriction was being put on the functions of the Occupy movement.  With so many locations in the city to choose from, many with the space and features necessary to support the camp, the city wanted to force the camp – which is the movement itself, symbolically – into a smaller space with limiting ordinances.  What happened in the signing of the construction contract that made it legal to limit the first amendment rights of the people using the space?  What clause was there that gave Mayor Nutter the power to vote free assembly?  Was it somewhere between who will lay the concrete and who will plant the shrubs?  Of course, not.  So, they stayed – dividing themselves from a unit which, regardless of their intentions, was willing to bargain away their first amendment for reasons unknown to me but speculated by many.

 

Philadelphia, which literally means “brotherly love,” has never been a place renowned for its charm.  We are city of working class people, strong on culture and rich in pride, opinionated and close-knit, critical of our leaders (and sports teams), and fabulous at applying more swear words to a sentence than words comprising the actual thought.  We are sarcastic and sharp at the tongue.  We are as tough as we are loud, and we are equally unapologetic.  It is this character, read through our snickers and jeers, that often leaves the nation asking “where is the love?”  I try to help others understand us by asking them recall how their brother loved them.  He poked; he pinched; he knocked you around; but he loved you unconditionally, taught you to stand up for yourself, and never let you down when you really needed him.  We are the birthplace of the freedoms this nation has taken from granted and this movement is determined to put to work.  We are great in a debate, but even better in a fight.  And, we are really, really good when push comes to shove.

 

Occupy Philly demonstrated all things bold and beautiful about the history and character of this city.  They were uncompromising in their stance and unrelenting in their stand.  They saw an element that endeavored to sway them toward a compromise that left them holding all the short straws, regarding their camp and regarding their rights.  They withstood, with peace and dignity, the chaos that ensued when this now annexed portion of the project attempted to divide and harass them.  They made clear their objective and their ideology with their rejection of an insufficient negotiation that tried to limit their rights and their reach into the community.

 

This movement is not about compromise.  This movement cannot rely on those in power to do what is right for the people.  This movement cannot take leave of the rights written right here in my city so that mayors can be credited with a keeping on the peace sown by our commitment to non-violence.  And above all, this movement cannot be negotiated into smaller space and smaller time at so critical a moment in our American history, especially for the continuance of the same type of progress that has been pushing our nation backwards for half a century.  If the leaders of our cities want us to move, they are just going to have to give us the space they call their office – because that is what we are after: change in leadership.  Not by name, not by party, but by thinking, by conduct, and by construct itself.

 

It was a beautiful moment for Occupy Philadelphia.  It was a moment of epiphany for me.  And somewhere between the locking of the arms and the drums that celebrated long into the night, I’m sure the fathers of nation who lived and walked on these very streets, who rallied the servants of an empirical British doctrine designed for the profit of kings, who wrote the words on which we all stand now, did their own mic check.  We might not have heard it, but it was loud and clear to those who were paying attention, and it started off something like, “We, the people…”

Critical Path

/ JillArcangela / 3 Comments

As Occupy camps across the nation are swept up and out, we find ourselves in a puzzling and contradictory state of both expulsion and exaltation.  While we may have been dealt a technical blow, suffering the loss of space and materials, we have gained significant ground.  A revived zeal, cheers of ironic victory, and a hell of a lot of media coverage garnish the beautiful affirmation that we are winning.  Amid the noise of political banter, police actions, and even the underlying hum of counter-Constitutional conspiracy from our nation’s highest office, we tune our senses to the subtle yet resounding message: we are getting to them.  Though public statements made by directed (not independently reasoning) local officials outline reasons to break up the camps that range from public safety to impeding on the picnic spaces of area employees, there are a few very real reasons the powers that be want the movement dismantled, and all of them are odious, not odorous – as they would have us believe.

The obvious reason to break up Occupy camps is our edging closer and closer to our first inevitable victory, one we must win over our most visible adversary: the police.  To do this, the movement needs only to continue to show up.  Peaceful assembly in large numbers, arrests resulting from civil disobedience, and the tactical maneuvers and discharging of weapons by police add up to more than public failure and embarrassment for city officials.  The simple fact is that our cities, fiscally crumbling beneath the economic pillage of the higher-ups, cannot sustain the expense of continued police action against the movement.  The obvious question is then raised, why carry out said action?

Any logical, logistical thinking person would deduce that it would be easier, cheaper, and more pleasant to let the camps stand, cooperating with internal working groups to keep occupations clean, safe, and free of unwanted elements.  Instead, the cities leave occupations to fend for themselves, blaming occupants for problems only reconcilable through cooperation from local officials then wasting city resources in unsuccessful attempts to unseat the movement, citing problems stemming from the city’s systematic failure and political ineptitude in dealing with the camps.  While the cities struggle to pay for actions against Occupy and the public relations necessary to recuperate both the city’s reputation and the personal political careers of those in office, the bottom of the shilling purse fast approaches.  Meanwhile, the only thing these actions succeed in doing is strengthening our resolve and exposing the corrupt ringers of a much larger, far more crooked game – an expense of a different kind, equally unaffordable for the city, but with pressure from the top to dispense the movement, local officials find themselves the scapegoats and puppets of multi-millionaires and are left holding the checking and the smoking gun.

Given the cost and blatant unconstitutionality of these relentless assaults, the indication becomes clearer that those in power are in fact struggling to protect something they feel is worth the increasing social and financial costs.  What they stand in firm defense of is not, however, the things they were sworn to protect: our national sovereignty, our freedom, our people, peace, and prosperity – nationally speaking.  It is to protect the illusion of democracy which serves as a façade for political pirates and their network of corporate accomplices who, with focused intent and great efficiency, have managed to turn our government into a well-oiled wealth machine for an American criminal elite so devoid of ethics that they conduct their business at the cost of human life and liberty, and from behind the protective cover of titles and privilege we unwittingly bestowed upon them in good faith.

Though we, those who comprise and support the Occupy movement, relay our messages to the public in terms more common and understandable terms – buzz words like “income disparity,” “bank bailouts,” and “corporate welfare” – it is essential that we understand our mission will not be completed with the passing of meager legislation that will be torn down and reconstructed to the benefit of these American traitors and capitalistic mutineers.  We must change the structure of our government so that it is no longer possible for the public servants we elect to govern themselves as they are clearly ill-suited for a task of such great moral obligation, having proven themselves unscrupulous manipulators of legality and hoarders of wealth.  We must change the checks and balances of an old system that relied on the goodness of man and was constructed before the design of the economic system that is now our undoing.

This brings us around to the battle of Antietam, something I mentioned in a previous letter.  At the birth of the American Civil War, Confederate and Union soldiers fought in one of the bloodiest wars the world has ever known.  At the time, the goals of President Lincoln were solely to preserve the nation, keeping the North and South united.  However, it was in the wake of this battle that Lincoln realized that the hardships already faced and those to come amounted to a war that would not be worth the end prize of a rejoined but unimproved Republic.  It was necessary to make the nation greater, stronger, and more just that it ever was before the secession of the South.  It was through this effort, this weighing the ferocity of the fight against the victory to be won, that the abolishment of slavery was decided upon, an act Lincoln believed would create the better society he so desired for us and justify the critical path that our nation was forced to forge by other circumstances.  From this we learn that it is not enough for us to simply correct tax law and imprison a few stuffed suits from various financial institutions.  Doing so would only mop up the puddle created by the leak in our roof.  It in no way corrects the real problem or secures our ability to weather future storms.

Those who have risen to power, occupying offices won in backhanded games of democratic manipulations and shadow deals by mystery men, now sit atop the world’s most dangerous con.  They peddle propaganda about the merits of capitalism and publicize dramatic political epitaphs laden with invented terminology and imaginary economic science, all the while stuffing down our throats values of materialism and servitude to the market.  They sit in secret meetings, gathering insider information that translates into stock market trading tips.  At the end of the day, the rearrange their personal portfolios, using privileged information to amass obscene personal wealth, something any citizen would be locked up for, but they do legally, protected by laws and exemptions they have created for themselves.  This is why Willy went to Washington.  This is why they clamor to serve, clawing their way through mudslinging elections (an insight into their true, frayed moral fiber), to grasp in the mêlée public offices that pay less than $200,000 annually.  Not because they feel an earnest sense of duty to their nation; not because they hear a calling to serve their neighbors and community; not because they could not make this much or more money working for the companies that own them, but because it permits them access to money making opportunities far beyond anything they could ever tap into on their own or take advantage of legally.  In exchange for access to the money machine and their resulting personal fortunes, American politicians repay the people and corporations who funded such opportunity by placing them and their private agendas into positions of power and priority, creating business networks and removing legal barriers so their financial backers can bulk their own treasuries without limit, at any cost, and at our expense.

To stand up and say that we want our grievances with these outside industries addressed by the people we have entrusted with our political process is like telling the wolf that the fox ate our chickens.  He simply doesn’t care, but he’ll lick his chops of his portion crumbs and promise you anything to keep the henhouse guarded as is.  We, as a movement, do not want our government to hear our grievances.  We want it to hear our wrath.  We want these criminals to scamper futilely under their fancy oak desks, pulling in those big leather chairs behind them in helpless panic, as we storm the capital, cuffing every profiteer who has abused our trust and capitalized on our former ignorance.

We must organize in greater forms and with loftier goals, fueled by the apparent desperation of our cities as they tip of their hand, revealing their struggle to contain our movement and our message.  This is not a plea to be heard.  This is a change in ownership.  Remember this in the days ahead.  We are not a protest to be stifled or stymied by the confiscation of books and tents.  We are here to overthrow the criminal hijackers of Washington as well as Wall Street.  Change will not – cannot – come from within.  It can only come from us.  It starts in our streets and ends on the hill.  Aim high, think big, and keep your feet on the ground… marching, park or no park, tent or no tent.  Ours is a critical path.

Truth and Consequences

/ JillArcangela / Leave a comment

I’m sure most of us have had that moment in which you said the thing that had to be said, rather than the thing that someone wanted to hear, and suffered for your honesty.  Perhaps it was a friend who really loved someone who was just all wrong, or a person you once recognized who was fading to drugs or alcohol, or maybe it was even someone who loved you that you loved, too – just not the same way.  At one time or another, we’ve all had to say something that was as difficult for us to vocalize as it was for someone else to hear.  Even if you can’t recall or somehow managed to dodge the bashed-for-caring bullet up until now, let me assure you: If you’re sitting in occupation (or promoting it from the outside), you’re officially hated.  Don’t despair, though.  It isn’t your fault.  This is not one of those times where things would be better left unsaid.

There are many, maybe millions, who feel that the Occupy movement is a waste, a joke, or some insane scheme at Socialism or worse.  Being vocal about the movement, I am often headed off by feisty young Republicans, grumpy old men, or the flatly uninformed with all kinds of reasons why Occupy is the ugliest concoction of the most un-American things they can conjure.  My rebuttal is typically kicked off with a hardy and involuntary laugh, the kind that could send coffee out your nose if you were mid-swallow.  It isn’t funny, I know, but there is a level of humor in it for me that I can’t explain.  Perhaps it’s the “laugh or you’ll cry” mentality.  In my conversations on the matter, I’ve been told everything from Occupy being a movement to make the US, Canada, and Mexico one country to how the marchers only want their student loans forgiven because they are too lazy to work and apply their degrees.  I’ve been told Occupy should be shut down because we are wasting the precious resources of cities too broke to handle all the arrests (as though not arresting occupants is a situational alternative too mind-boggling to consider), but at no point does anyone ask themselves why our cities are all verging on bankruptcy.  These are just to name a few punch lines in the cascade of ridiculousness that falls from the mouths of those who are among the 99% but are so far incapable of getting behind the movement even though it is clearly behooves them, personally and nationally.

Understanding why these citizens would cling to foolish and shortsighted explanations, spouting them out in instant frustration then ramming their heads safely into the sand, rather than calmly addressing the problems of society may be critical to the movement consoling and recruiting those who tremble in the face of social change.  In my search for insight into this bizarre and counterproductive behavior, I read an amazing article written by Jim Sleeper, a political science lecturer from Yale University.  The article talks about the irony of those who discredit a movement poised to improve their lives and why he believes they do it.  His eloquence is masterful, and his vocabulary will make you smarter even though you’ll feel dumb while you’re forging through it.  I strongly recommend reading it as my discussion of it is no substitute for this primary source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-sleeper/behind-the-snarking-about_b_1065830.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics).   Reading it, however, is not a prerequisite to understanding my related message.

Sleeper sees the response as being related to “a public psychopathology” referred to with the French term Ressentiment, which is essentially when those too fearful to face the real offenders and oppressors seek smaller targets (typically those courageous enough to take on those same enemies) on which to focus their anxiety and insecurity resulting in misplaced anger and hostile disagreement.  The resentment grows as private trash-talk by like-minded cowards becomes increasingly public, fueled by the attacks of those who propagate the fear and lies inherent to the condition itself for the purposes of agenda progress and propped up by the false security of an invented reality, one in which the problem is not the inflictors of oppressive societal conditions but instead the courageous individuals who stand defiantly before these powerful forces and point out problems the cowards are too intimidated by to address.  Basically, they don’t like you because you won’t allow them to live blindly.

By standing up for what is right, by shouting truths counter to the popular belief, and by fighting so vehemently against forces that govern the lives of Americans, you are proclaiming that something is wrong – seriously wrong.  Believing you, hearing you, and opening their eyes to see what you see is falling down the rabbit hole.  It means they have to accept that things are have gone astray and, worse yet, to discover the truth behind the lies that painted their existence.  As when Dorothy drew back the curtain or as in the case of any child who ever yanked off a holiday beard, the truth can be heartbreaking.  What would they have, what hope, what aspirations, what new responsibilities if they come to face the fact that their American dream has been just that – a dream?

Bringing the masses into the fold requires us, the revolutionists, to offer more than just political rebuttals for their misguided resentment.  (Granted, not laughing in their faces would probably also help, and I promise to try.)  We must remember that those who take to the frontlines in any battle are those who are cut out for fighting, which is something most people are not.  Those who quiver in the back or who plant their feet firmly in resistance to truth are still valuable members of our society and our movement, and we must do whatever we can to help them adjust to world the way it is if there is going to be any hope for achieving the world the way it should be.  We need to be able to give them something more than a laundry list of grievances and a heap of facts proving how far we, as a nation, have fallen from grace.  We need to meet them with hope and with wisdom; and while answers might be on short supply just yet, though I have considerable faith in those behind this movement, we can share with them our vision and our ideas.

In the weeks to come, I’m going to write to you about the Civil War and a story my father told me about the Battle of Antietam.  The relevance of this story will cue us for a honing of our movement that is both natural and essential.  In the meantime, we must find ways to stir the pot, but not in the bubbling, boiling, swishing fashion of the raucous revolutions of old.  We need to smooth and cox and simmer as we would a delicate pudding, patiently awaiting the melding and rendering required of all great visions.  We must take the time to listen and find the fear behind their words, to reason with those who seem unreasonable, to answer with possibility instead of counterpoint, and to find the common ground.  And if that moment comes when you realize you are out of time, out of patience, and out of answers, you can always do what I did after being trapped in a flea market stale with a raging Republican (a man peddling discount toys on a picnic table for a living – a man clearly of the 99%) and a toddler in full meltdown.  When he asked forcibly and with great vocal snicker, “then who do you vote for?”

I shrugged and smiled sweetly with a batting of the eyes, and yelled “OCCUPY!”

Then I grabbed my kid and ran.

Hey, you can’t win them all.

“Firing Back” Article Backfires

/ JillArcangela / Leave a comment

The cover article of the NY Post’s November 3rd issue drew my attention and a bit of hostility as well.  I wrote the following letter to the Editor.  Whether they publish it or not remains to be seen.

Dear Editor,

I couldn’t help but notice a front page article on the Post’s November 3rd issue.  I was confused by the title and subheading, proclaiming that the “other 99%” (as though there could be two 99% portions of a 100% whole, but basic mathematics aside…) is fed up with the OWS presence in Zuccotti Park and how the movement has been “hijacked by criminals.”  I should start by reminding readers that if being hijacked by criminals was reasonable enough cause to shut down well-intentioned political movements then the doors on Capitol Hill should’ve been closed decades ago.  However, somehow, of the three journalists who cooperated to assemble this piece, not one is complaining about that stench.

Another thing that reeks is the language used to describe the OWS occupants and their camp.  Words like “chaos,” “filth,” “thuggish,” “motley,” and “mob” all litter this article; words with negative connotations used explicitly to paint a bias and unfair portrait of the occupants and – in turn – their cause.

While the movement, I’m sure, apologizes to small businesses in the area surrounding Zuccotti Park and all camps worldwide, there are a few things that should be understood to give a little depth to the situation; not the least of which is that the OWS occupants have been thus far unable to build a positive rapport with local officials largely because of repeated attacks and incidences of police brutality against them.  This problem is hindering their ability to acquire the things they need and curtail the problems mentioned in the article.  Things as simple as portable toilets and generators to those as dynamic as police cooperation to help them rid themselves of bad elements within the group would help support the encampment and make the situation more livable for all, both inside and out.

Moreover, had any of the collaborating writers of this piece done any research into the countless examples of similar movements in American history or even into the psychology of a setting such as the OWS camp, they would have discovered that there is nothing unusual about the problems OWS faces at this early stage of their occupancy.  All movements, especially those that have brought such large numbers of people into such close quarters, have had problems like this at the outset.  It takes time for activist leaders and the group population to develop the courage, understanding, and systems required to forge safer environments and better community relations.  This type of work is coming into focus for the movement, but it is unfortunately stalled by the time and resources occupancies all over the country are expending on resisting the countless attempts to remove them and deny them their first amendment rights, which in most cities means withstanding unnecessary brutality from the police – a group that should be working with them to defend their rights and ensure their safety.  Instead the camps are forced to face these problems alone and while fighting an uphill battle.

If anyone can be blamed for the “filth, stench,” and safety issues surrounding these camps, it is the city officials who have failed these occupants.  Rather than call for dramatic action to evict this camp, which I can guarantee you will not only create violence but fail in its mission to discourage or relocate the movement, I would implore the city to cooperate with OWS to increase a sense of security for residents, tourists, and occupants alike, and to reduce problems like filth and crime around the camp.  After all, reduced tavern traffic and offensive odors aside, the people of OWS are just as entitled to their presence, sanitation, and security as everyone existing outside of the barricades.

Jill-Arcangela M. Kopp

Author of “Letters to the Occupants” (blog @ WordPress.com)

Jenkintown, PA

Chain of Fools

/ JillArcangela / Leave a comment

Last week, I wrote about the violence that overtook the city of Oakland, violence that left a two-tour Iraq War Veteran with a brain injury and so far unable to speak.  A couple days ago, I wrote about the shining example set by the Albany Police Department that refused to evict the occupants camped in Albany, an action which forced the city to communicate with the occupants and has begun to build a working agreement between the Occupy Albany group and the city officials.  Then, late last night, I tuned into the appropriate media channels, none of which are on the television – by the way, to check up on the Occupy camps around the world.  What I found was yet another attack being carried out against the Occupy Oakland group, which had organized a general strike that shut down the Port of Oakland for several hours.  Before this night of violence ended, a civilian was killed.  Even after all this, I woke up this morning to an article in the New York Post about the way in which businesses around Zuccotti Park are suffering as a result of the Occupy Wall Street movement’s encampment there (foot traffic supporting these businesses was made impossible because of recently removed police barricades around the area).  The article discussed the continued pressure from those seated snuggly in their political offices demanding actions be taken to clear out the Occupy Wall Street movement.  What kind of “action” do they have in mind, exactly?

There are, after all, only two real options in the situation.  Thus far, with the exception of Albany (whose hand was forced by the wisdom of Police Chief Steve Korkoff and his support staff) and Philadelphia (whose days of peace are numbered as a construction deadline for the plaza they occupy is quickly approaching), few if any cities have made the correct choice so far.  With so many examples of what-not-to-do in a one-of-two selection set, it seems – I’m sorry to say – plainly moronic that the great city of New York is still debating and not already underway in their course of just and cooperative action.  Personally, I’m marveling at the apparent ineptitude of the political officials presiding over lower Manhattan and their complete inability to understand the situation.  If this chain of command cannot understand what the one and only appropriate course of action in this situation is then they are, in fact, a chain of fools.  But let’s play fair, put the kid gloves on, and walk them through their options, shall we?

Option One: Work with them.  I know many politicians both local and more removed from the situation do not want to exercise this option because the movement has called them out on the corruption that has put and kept these people in office.  It has also voiced focused scorn toward the corporations whom these politicians are now indebted to for their professional successes and thus essentially sworn to serve.  However, considering the alternative (see Option Two) and the perhaps realized but not yet accepted fact that these groups and this movement aren’t going away, one would think that the city officials would chose to employ this option.  Meet with them.  Ask them to develop a working group to communicate and cooperate with the city in securing the space and items required to exist without filth, violence, and disruption to local businesses and residents.  What’s more is that if the city took measures to protect these camps, helping them manage the threats of outside criminals, and stopped the nightly evictions and attacks, people would feel safer approaching these areas and patronizing the areas businesses despite the tents in the park across the street.  Clearly, however, the city, state, and eerily silent federal governments have chosen not to follow the course of peace, liberty, and sanity.  So let’s see what’s behind door number two.

Option Two: Fight them.  So far, the use of aggressive policing, harsh enforcement of city ordinances, manipulation of local and state laws, application on non-lethal weapons, agitation of the camps, mass arrests, attempts to blind the public by manipulating media outlets, and bullying have been the mode of operandi for city officials.  This has left many police and “protesters” (I despise the word) injured, rendered a veteran literally speechless, indirectly caused the death of one citizen, cost what is now probably totaling in the millions of dollars collectively, and violated the constitutional rights of thousands upon thousands of American citizens.  Still, despite all of the blood, sweat, tears, and money thrown down on both sides of the line, this option has left us, as a nation, no closer to solutions for the problems the Occupy movement stands against and no closer to a conclusion of the events themselves.  Instead, the occupancies grow larger and more organized, the message of the attacks spurs outsiders to extend greater support, the perpetrators of the actions find themselves the victims of technological counterattacks, and the feeling of necessity to complete their mission becomes stronger inside the movement as the corrupt and their ringers out themselves with their increased volume and harder lines against it.

Even after such a short period of time, fewer than three months since the first tent was erected, it would seem that our government, both local by their actions and larger by their failure to defend the people, has taken the same stance on our grievances and assemblies as the governments in Libya and Egypt did not so long ago.  Our government has failed to heed its own words, to follow its own advice, and to protect the constitutional liberties entitled to us from birth.  This will force us onto a long and difficult path.  However harsh this course may be, however, we must understand that in their actions, thus far, the government has established its loyalty to a system without justice, without ethic, without respect for the people to whom this nation truly belongs, and hence without peace.  Their failure to cooperate and communicate with us, to hear our grievances, to aid us in our aim to mend our Republic and eliminate political corruption and corporate maleficence, and to protect us from the brutality that has been carried out against our camps, is their signature of approval on an agenda for continued abuse of our nation, our freedoms, our economy, our planet, and our people.  If our politicians will not hear us now that we are living and screaming in their streets, now that we are calling for reform, now that we are tolerating and reconvening after nightly physical assaults, now that we are expressing keen awareness of the political and societal atrocities being committed by corporate bedmates, now the American citizens have been injured and killed in this fight for freedom, when will they hear us?  Perhaps it is time to take their orders to disperse us, and the deafening silence of those in our nation’s capital who could defend us, as all the proof we need to know – truly know – that our government has nothing of the democracy from which it was birthed nor the republican practices for which it was groomed left in it.  With every moment of silence on the hill, with every tear gas canister fired, and with every night of violence carried out against people attempting to exercise their first and most basic human and American rights, they sound their call to war.

I believe, with every piece of my being, that our ability to stay peaceful – even when staring into the drooling jowls of the dogs of war – will be the key to our success.  For every occupant struggling to maintain his composure in the face of unadulterated violence, there are countless others on the outside watching.  As long as we remain peaceful, we can continue to prove to the growing audience that we are not the animals that politicians and their media paint us to be, and that we are not here to destroy the nation as they say we are.  We are here to restore democracy.  We are here to save our nation and our planet.  We are here to be the peace and justice we want to see in the world.  We must be committed to this path of peace if we are to succeed in our mission.  Let the chain of fools run themselves into the ground, burning up their resources and exhausting their men.  With poise and patience, we will out wait them and out will them.  And when the tear gas clears, when they have nothing left with which to try to tear us down, we will still be there – ready to do what we came to do.

“Do your worst,” Churchill said, “and we will do our best.”

Where The Good Cops Are

/ JillArcangela / 3 Comments

When I started researching this letter, I intended to title it as my father suggested: A Tale of Two Cities. Unfortunately, the occurrences of police brutality have persisted far beyond the suggested “one of two” cities in the title. In recent days, it seems brutality is becoming the common response to occupancies in cities all over the world. Even within days of the tragic injury of an Iraq War Veteran in Oakland (CA), occupancies in cities including Denver, Austin, and Richmond were met with similar tactics of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepperballs, and the old fashioned baton beating. It would seem these local officials and police administrators were determined to barge into these occupancies in search of their very own martyrs for the movement. But this is only one side of the story. What of the other city in the famous title?

Perhaps the one police department not getting enough attention these days is the small and courageous force of Albany, New York. Contrasting the courage being asked of officers who must set aside whatever personal feelings they have about the Occupy movement’s objectives and swallow their fears of exercising brute force against unarmed civilians, the officers of Albany and their superiors did something far more difficult. They stood up to the powers that be and said, “No.”

Yes. That’s right. They said, “No.” Allow me to explain.

When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Albany Mayor Gerald Jennings called for Occupy Albany to be cleared by Albany’s finest, Police Chief Steve Korkoff wisely evaluated the situation and then refused to uphold his orders. His justification for this was that the group was peaceful; he feared disturbing the peace would result in violence; and he believed that mounting an offense against the occupancy would upset a positive relationship between the citizens of Albany and its police force. Moreover, action against the movement seemed irresponsible when weighing the logistics of the situation (violence, manpower, cost to the city, etc.) and the charges against the group (misdemeanor trespassing). What’s more is that the city police department’s refusal to comply with the orders given by the governor and mayor were supported by the state police force. A representative of the New York State Police even commented to the Albany Times Union newspaper that “police know policing, not the governor and not the mayor.”

The refusal to carry out orders for clearing the occupancy is, of course, unprecedented. I, for one, feel that Chief Korkoff should be commended for his ability to stand up for what he believed was both right and beneficial to his city. His valor not only protected the occupants and their rights, the citizens of Albany, and his officers, but it also had several other beneficial upshots. The first is that, since it was clear the city had no recourse otherwise, a meeting with the occupants was held to iron out agreements regarding their stay. This, in turn, opened the lines of peaceful and respectful communication between the two groups, fostering positive feelings on both sides. Additionally, it functions as an example for police forces and local governments in other cities as a possible course of action in dealing with the Occupy camps in their areas. Though many police forces are taking their lessons from the pages of the now infamous Oakland Police Department, they should be taking them from the quiet capital of Albany. Police have all too often been the mechanism of violence when they should in fact be the last defense against it. Above all of this, however, what I like best is the subtle reminder that the constitutional right of the people to assemble cannot and should not be trumped by state or local restrictions on the use of public space. Now, here’s an idea we can build upon.

A lawyer interviewed recently by Keith Olbermann pointed out that restrictions on the use of public spaces create a unique problem when discussing our right to peaceable assembly. These restrictions are not technically law as they are not passed by legislative branches of government, but rather written and enforced by executive rule. They are ordinances, and though you can be arrested for violating them, the arrests are essentially optional – something we know to be true because of the selective enforcement we have seen over the last several years. That aside, if the local law intends to uphold these ordinances, the question next becomes, “If not here then where?”

I’m certain that when our founding fathers (it freaks me out, by the way, when they are referred to as The Architects; that’s way too Orwell/Huxley for me) wrote our right to peaceable assembly into blessed existence there was plenty of open space and even a fervor about the very idea that created tolerance to things like trampled bushes (my apologies to the Rose Kennedy Conservancy). Today, however, our culture and population have created a very different landscape for political assembly, literally. Every tiny space is ruled over by some group, public or private. Our cities have become hulking establishments of metal and concrete with narrow streets and narrower sidewalks. Our city parks and plazas are home to the homeless and lunch break vacation spots to the metropolitans. Places once sacred because of the great liberties conceived and signed there are now merely temporary parking for coffee sucking suits and photo-ops for passing tourist groups, people living out some momentary appreciation for freedoms they don’t work to maintain or see vanishing from their lives.

At some point, cities need to be reminded that their municipal ordinances do not trump your constitutional rights. And at many points, we all need to be reminded what these spaces – in each city selected for profundity of location and visibility to the offices on high – were really intended for. They were given to us for this very purpose: for us to come together and enjoy our American freedoms.

In Nashville, recent developments have the state and local officials on the ropes as Occupy Nashville was awarded a restraining order against Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam and other city officials, and a lawsuit is being assembled regarding the attempted infringement on the occupants’ first amendment rights. The case will be huge for the visibility and morale of the movement, but even Nashville’s progress came at the barrel of gun – or, in this case, the butt of a nightstick.

If only the story of Albany was as loud in the ears and as clear in the eyes of Americans as the nightly reports of mayhem and brutality. If only an honorable police chief making comments from a press conference was as visually stimulating (and hence newsworthy by our media standards) as grey clouds of chemical weapons being dispersed on scattering civilians wearing bandanas over their faces. If only military contractors pushed valor and humility as hard as they pushed nonlethal weapons when gearing up our nation’s police forces.

Though the reality for most occupancies is less than what it should be, and what we know now it could be, it only makes the movements commitment to remain peaceful even more important, especially when under attack. This is one final and beautiful lesson we learn from Albany. In peace, more things are possible. Stay peaceful, campers… And thank you, Albany.

Oakland Raiders

/ JillArcangela / Leave a comment

As I am writing this, I am listening to a live stream of the police raid of Occupy Oakland’s camp.  This raid is now in its 14th hour.  My stomach is turning.  I can taste adrenaline in my mouth, and I am just outside of Philadelphia, more than 2,800 miles away.  Police are now making a notification of pending arrests; choppers are overhead and a sonic cannon is being set-up.

When I woke up this morning, I heard about the raid and contacted Mayor Jean Quan’s office to plead she call it off.  Apparently, my plea and those of countless others, I’m sure, fell on deaf ears.  Whatever Mayor Quan’s career aspirations are, they clearly do not require winning over the people of Oakland.

The fight is intensifying with every moment that I write.  The knot in my stomach grows tighter and more acidic.

I am not sure why a city as close to economic disaster as Oakland is would use its resources and spend its money to break up a peaceful assembly.  I am even more perplexed by the thinking of the Mayor and her administrators in regards to addressing said assembly.  The brutality of this eviction, the lack of communication with Occupy members, and the blatant disrespect for the constitutional rights of all American citizens is only the surface of the poor judgment that lies at the heart of this attack.  The deeper failing lies in the very idea that this single attack, a vile waste of dwindling resources in the collapsing city of Oakland, will put an end to a local branch of a movement that has reached all six inhabited continents and that gains power and visibility every day.  The decision to mount this attack against a peaceful, constitutional assembly which is ultimately backed by millions of people worldwide is short-sighted and plainly moronic.  It is cutting a head off of Hydra.

By now, the park has been gassed and cleared in Oakland, but where did they go?  They went into the streets, and they did so in greater number.  Tomorrow, the camp will be back, the march will be bigger, and the message will be louder.  This movement isn’t going away, and attacking it will only make is stronger.  Arrestees become heroes.  Cuff marks become war wounds.  Tear gas becomes the wind of change.

My writing has been repeatedly interrupted by visual checks on the streaming video and surfing to find new feeds.  I am updating Twitter every few minutes.  The news grows more and more shocking.  An aerial feed of Oakland’s remaining occupants who took to the streets and reassembled at another location was cut off moments before police launched pepperballs at that crowd.  In a desperate search to find more information, I refresh my Twitter again to learn that two more cities have come under attack.  I am sick.

With no more video to follow, I turn to the television.  Unable to get localized coverage of the events, which undoubtedly will be only momentary snips of video and unassertive comments on the attacks, I find nothing; and I mean nothing.  The national news coverage struggles to find things to cover in their attempts to ignore the growing Occupy movement: a series of political candidates shaking hands with the people they will knife in the back the moment they are in office; the exhausted, tabloid-esque coverage of Michael Jackson’s doctor who – SURPRISE! – was really just a pharmaceutical drug dealer; the financial double-talk of an investing advisor masking the truth of our economic ruin with literal bells and whistles.  Not a peep about the brutal attacks taking place on an increasing number of cities.

As the feed dies, my ability to watch comes to a close, but it doesn’t matter.  I know how this night ends.  Some are arrested, some are treated for wounds, and some seek shelter.  All reassemble.  It won’t be long – a day at most – before the tents are up, the people are back, and the marching begins again.  Even as I write this, I hear a voice breaks through.  Clicking over to my internet browser, I discover a feed that had been cut off streaming again.  The pixelated image reveals a line of officers with riot shields and a line of “movers” (I refuse to call them “protesters” – see Protest Is For Pansies) standing before them, still fighting in what is now hour 17.  Believe me when I say this, Mayor Quan – and all those who attempt to crush this movement under the boots of oppression, they will still be there tomorrow and the day after and the day after that and all the days it takes to make this right.

 

Note: While all this was transpiring, my father – a brilliant man who is both sympathetic to the movement and a retiree of the NYPD – sent me an article about the Albany Police Department in upstate New York.  The officers of the department refused to follow the commands of local officials to evict the Occupy campers in their city.  I have not read the article yet, but will and promise to write about it soon.  This is notable, commendable, and wise.  During the Nuremburg Trails, obeying orders was not a reasonable excuse for carrying out acts against citizens that were morally divergent or even questionable… something the officers of forces around the globe might want to keep in mind.