Skip to main content

I'm kinda sick of it. A fully-armed, military-style police force comes out to stop protesters from marching or assembling - because traffic and lawns are more important than human rights and social justice - and if, out of many thousands, a minute number of protesters physically resists the impediment of that force, people paint the entire movement as lacking credibility because it isn't non-violent.

We're faced with guns, LRADs, tear gas, truncheons, horses and more, but if we push back; if we try to continue marching when they block us, if we fight to get out of their grip, gawd forbid use balsa sticks which break on impac, its then justifiable for protesters to be beaten bloody by the police. The movement is delegitimized because its not "non-violent". The Gandhi purity from those on the sidelines is disturbing.

How is it that with all that weaponry, including shields and body armor, we could ever see the protesters as the threat? As the aggressor? The very moment those police don those weapons, they are the aggressor. They are making it known that they will use whatever force they feel like it to achieve whatever compliance they  - or their masters - want from us.

It is laughable that a fully-armed policeman with a thick truncheon is the victim of "violence" when he's wrestling an unarmed woman, who just wants to march, and a couple of people with balsa sticks which can barely reach him - and break on impact - are wielded at his head. Yes, he's the victim and the entire police force is justified if they respond with more violence.

Because, you see, them escalating the violence is our fault. And that is fine. We don't hold our police force to a non-violence standard. After all, what better way to keep the peace than with an LRAD?! "Deafening noise for peace!" "Gunshots for peace!"

It's bullshit.

The Occupy movement has never done anything other than march and rally. Perhaps a few individuals have done some things, but the movement of hundreds of thousands around the country has simply gathered and talked. And committed the apparently unforgivable sin of.... wait for it... blocking traffic! (Oh, wait... it was actually the cops that blocked the traffic.) We might have marched in the streets and slowed down traffic. Oh no!

Worse: there has been some grass that has given its life to the War on Assembly. We're brutal. All those blades of non-indigenous, chemical-craving grass. How could we? Lock us all up. And, for our extreme violence, beat us bloody on the way.

Get a grip, folks. The systems of exploitation of vast swaths of humanity for the benefit of a few are kept in place by the threat of force beyond our imagination. But, the most insidious weapon they have is our willingness to delegitimize anyone who stands up to it if they don't meet our purity tests. Don't abuse the work of Gandhi. He knew what needed to be done in his time and his place. I doubt he would have analyzed every situation the same way. Don't use him as an excuse to undermine the realities of what needs to happen today.

I've been arrested. I was absolutely non-violent. I simply sat on the ground before the police approached. When it came time, I kindly asked to be helped up. I live with neuropathies and could not stand on my own. What I got for my non-violence was a permanently injured spine. Moreover, as we all sat there loudly declaring that we would not resist, a small army gathered to our right in the dark of night. We had been talking arrest procedure with the cops on site, when suddenly we noticed a battalion of fully-armed riot police marching toward us. Why were they there? We offered zero resistance. We had been talking peacefully with the police. Both sides of the transaction were being respectful, up until that point.

It was nothing short of intimidation. A show of force. And they aren't showing that force because they won't use it. They will. When it comes down to it, the powers that be are not going to give up their absolute control over the world's resources, including the humans they only see as tools to be used for their continued acquisition of power, without a fight. They will squash every attempt we make to speak. They use the media to distort the reality of what we're doing and saying. They will use their police forces (don't think for a minute that these police our "ours") to stop us from gathering. They do not have the capacity to arrest us all and hold us, yet. They cherry-pick how many arrests they do as an intimidation tactic. But when that doesn't stop us and they have no means of ending our actions, they aren't going to let us get our message out. They aren't going to give up control over our electoral system. They aren't going to walk away from the arms sales or the earth-destroying chemical industries or the oil revenues or whatever they think will line their pockets.

The playing ground is violent. They make it so by having the weapons in their possession. Throwing rocks at tanks or using sticks when people have guns, does not make the rock-throwers or the stick-wielders the violent instigators. That instigation began decades ago when the government decided to amass weapons. To pour more money into our military than all other countries combined.

You're worried that violence is coming? It's here. People around the world are dying from our violence every day. People in our inner cities are dying from it every day. Silently colluding with it in order to protect yourself or your lawn or your drive to work, makes you violent. Every day that you support our congress which keeps funding wars, you commit violence. Every day that you vote for someone who commands drone strikes, you commit violence. Every day that you defend the police for bringing overwhelming force to intimidate prostesters, you commit violence. Every time you tell the little guy that he deserved what he got for swatting back at the big war machine, you're committing violence. You're on the side of the bullies. We are a nation of bullies.

If you want non-violence, practice it. Don't vote for anyone who has ever supported funds for war. Don't vote for anyone who believes in drone strikes. Don't vote for anyone who accepts campaign donations from any business in the industrial military complex. Or the chemical industry. Or the insurance industry. Or any industry which harms people or the planet. And put your own butt on the line in front of all those weapons.

Yeah, in the light of all the grandiose and horrific violence being committed every day in the name of the USA, you are just so righteous to condemn a few people with balsa sticks and the ever-intimidating water bottle. Listent to yourselves? Sticks and water bottles vs guns, tanks, LRADs.

You demand that unarmed people maintain an absolute non-violence in the face of overwhelming military force. Why don't you demand the same when the police face the WMDs of balsa sticks and water bottles?

"You asked for it?" Really? "What can you expect?" Really? "Don't whine!" Really? No cries to the police of "you need to be non-violent!"

Why? Because, ultimately, you support violence. You support it every day when you defend the police, vote for just about anyone running for office these days, and buy products from companies which profit through the exploitation of others. To support capitalism - where profit, which means exploitation, is the revered principle of life - is to support harm, violence. You support violence if it means keeping what goes on around the world away from your doorstep.

How dare you judge the people on the streets who trying to wake us all up? 'Cause let me tell you, it ain't happening at the ballot box. There are no non-violent candidates listed, that I can see. Maybe you think incremental steps towards justice will happen via elections, but we all know that the nation is only talking about the "99%" because people got in the streets. And when they got there, they faced some scary shit. How dare you judge them?

Originally posted to UnaSpenser on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:27 PM PDT.

Also republished by Anti-Capitalist Chat, Progressive Policy Zone, Frustrati, and Team DFH.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (168+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shahryar, Burned, One Pissed Off Liberal, LucyandByron, snoopydawg, triv33, david mizner, middleagedhousewife, Constantly Amazed, Ginger1, temptxan, aigeanta, AoT, NY brit expat, gulfgal98, PhilJD, Dopeman, Shawn Russell, wsexson, sngmama, Markoff Chaney, Horace Boothroyd III, SpecialKinFlag, TheMomCat, mikeconwell, dilutedviking, greengemini, DavidW, Prospect Park, alnep, joe shikspack, idbecrazyif, hubcap, bluicebank, cotterperson, lotlizard, Crazy Moderate, zerelda, turn blue, mahakali overdrive, allenjo, m16eib, blueoasis, Bluesee, rogerdaddy, Justus, a2nite, Don midwest, marigold, Dumas EagerSeton, WisePiper, OldDragon, JonBarleycorn, poligirl, vacantlook, reddbierd, priceman, itsbenj, slowbutsure, madgranny, Tonedevil, wu ming, farmerchuck, Wednesday Bizzare, buckstop, shenderson, Oaktown Girl, ninkasi23, Karl Rover, Cassiodorus, Fe, bibble, papicek, milkbone, Aunt Martha, twigg, Shockwave, tardis10, protectspice, Wek, Anne was here, petulans, antirove, greenpunx, JayRaye, arealniceguy, hangingchad, donna in evanston, elwior, bronte17, Keori, Brown Thrasher, Renee, CT Hank, Wolf10, dotdot, Publius2008, radical simplicity, nicolemm, Jarrayy, ovals49, dwayne, ladyjames, wildwind, shaharazade, LeftOverAmerica, SmartAleq, cosmic debris, sebsgf, luckydog, daveygodigaditch, Lindy, CA Nana, majyqman, number nine dream, The Walrus, paulsmith8, AZ Sphinx Moth, TiaRachel, Zaphkiel, justme2122, means are the ends, efraker, pdxwoman, Liberal Thinking, deviant24x, Rizzo, Sean X, Panacea Paola, On The Bus, Quasimodal, zedaker, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, zaka1, Simplify, Foreign Devil, Creosote, toosinbeymen, rapala, JesseCW, Funkygal, devis1, glitterscale, Loudoun County Dem, greenbastard, oortdust, berko, Rick Aucoin, ScienceMom, chipmo, chidmf, tidalwave1, prettygirlxoxoxo, David Futurama, Deleuzional, tle, congenitalefty, Yo Bubba, enemy of the people, Damnit Janet, felix19, monroematt, GANJA, martini, david graeber, TPau, opinionated, Liberaltarian
  •  seems we've been taken over (64+ / 0-)

    many repubs or independents who couldn't stomach what's happened to the Repub party now call themselves Democrats but they still have their old values. For some reason, just because they call themselves Democrats, they feel that their old repub values should now be mainstream Dem values.

    and conservative Democrats love it because they can come out and be as authoritarian as they like, supported by these newcomers.

    It's an interesting example of how far we've drifted to the right and explains why those of us who've stayed on the left are vilified.

  •  Amen. (60+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry to hear about your injury. Thank you for putting your body on the line for all of us.

    I simply sat on the ground before the police approached. When it came time, I kindly asked to be helped up. I live with neuropathies and could not stand on my own. What I got for my non-violence was a permanently injured spine.
  •  Because it's to (7+ / 0-)

    compensate for a small manhood

  •  It's only violence when we fight back. (41+ / 0-)

    Police beating on hippies was and always will be "crowd control" necessary to keep the peace.

    Any time a police officer is struck, whether by accident or intent, that is a "violent assault".

    Reminds me of when Saint Reagan named his new nuclear missle "the Peacekeeper"

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:42:13 PM PDT

  •  trying to wake us all up? (7+ / 0-)

    Who says people are sleeping? All because you think that peace is best that doesn't mean other people do. The whole "wake up!" thing is just plain annoying. People are awake. What they don't need is people telling them to wake up. It assumes ignorance of the population. I would say the public is more apathetic than ignorant.

    Protesting is a marginalized thing now a days. Very little progress has been realized by the OWS movement. This is due to lack of media coverage, the protests being widespread and then shutdown due to bad weather and reopened due to nice weather. Seasonal occupying. It's like a timeshare.

    I still think we need to pool our resources, write legislation and hire lobbyists to get it through congress. Occupying streets doesn't have the impact it once did and it is time for new tactics.

    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:45:46 PM PDT

      •  I focused on the whole thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        The protesting in general has not changed things. OWS, so far, is a failure. There has been no policy turned into law because OWS has pushed it.

        As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

        by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:59:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Before OWS (36+ / 0-)

          wasn't the political topic of the day about deficits and austerity? The ridiculous notion that the U.S. budget was just like a family budget.

          Who changed that? Could the people that changed that be said to have woken people up? Where would we be right now without that change that occurred? What sort of language would the president be using today?

          Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

          by Burned on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:08:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nothing changed! (0+ / 0-)

            We have 500,000 educators out of work because of budget cuts. If OWS was successful those people would be working, because the Federal government would have been afraid of the protestors and they would have acted to fund the state budgets during the recession.

            As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

            by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:17:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well jbou (11+ / 0-)

              You seem to a little mixed about about the sequence of events.

              Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

              by Burned on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:28:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  nope (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FG

                no one in DC is quaking in their boots because some people are occupying. No one is moving legislation through any state house or our federal government because someone is occupying. You seem to think the OWS movement won a rhetorical battle about how we talk about debts but I doubt that's even the case.

                As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:30:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay jbou (5+ / 0-)

                  Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

                  by Burned on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:35:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No, There Is Fear (14+ / 0-)
                  no one in DC is quaking in their boots because some people are occupying.
                  There is fear coursing through the ruling class, palpable fear.  The proof is in the hysterical nature of the ruling class' reaction to OWS; the disproportionate over the top police presences, the gratuitous and sadistic state violence unleashed on non-violent protesters. If the elites weren't worried they'd not have taken those steps- obviously.  They are trying to wet down a powderkeg, and the manners chosen reek of desperation.

                  The DC power elite are reacting like a fear biting dog snapping at anyone who comes near while pissing themselves in terror.

                  If they weren't deathly afraid they'd be reacting with serene indifference. They are afraid, and they damn well should be.  

                  Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

                  by Kurt Sperry on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:39:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you love the drama, huh? (0+ / 0-)

                    That's fucking hysterical. The cops are doing their jobs. and the right wing media loves to throw bombs at you all but the MSM wants nothing to do with you all and the politicians barely know you exist. But keep thinking you have instilled any fear in anyone. That is truly funny.

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:45:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  um (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dotdot, chipmo, congenitalefty

                      You seem to sorta love the drama too?

                      I mean if you can call shooting people down on blogs drama....

                    •  Good job marginalizing a whole (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      congenitalefty

                      movement that brought attention to a very important issue.

                      That's fucking hysterical. The cops are doing their jobs. and the right wing media loves to throw bombs at you all but the MSM wants nothing to do with you all and the politicians barely know you exist. But keep thinking you have instilled any fear in anyone. That is truly funny.

                      Did you hear this on Glen Becks show?

                    •  Cops Doing Their Jobs? (6+ / 0-)

                      No.  Beating and intimidating non-violent non-resisting protesters exercising their Constitutionally protected speech and assembly rights is not their job.  In fact it's a serious crime that should get them kicked off the force and possibly incarcerated. Even if ordered to. Their job is in fact the exact opposite, to serve and protect the citizens who employ them and to protect their rights.

                      "You all" really haven't the slightest clue do you? What the hell are you doing here instead of hippy punching over at RedState with your ideological kin? Just trolling? Have you mistaken DK for some right wing authoritarian loving hate site?

                      I hope you don't count yourself as any sort of a progressive or liberal.

                      Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

                      by Kurt Sperry on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:07:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  jbou - before all the back and forth (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      congenitalefty, joe wobblie

                      I read your comment. And I have thought about that, being able to pool our resources, especially while we still HAVE some resources. But we have no hope in hell of competing with multinational corporation or with the rabid Koch brothers. AND the latter has been at the art of burrowing in on our states for decades. What we have in dc now is a termite infested house that has few sound timbers left. Some of those timbers are the courts, but they are rotting out fast.

                      And even when we lobby on our own behalf and thousands of us call and ask our congress critters not to vote on the NDAA authorizing unlimited detention for citizens we get nada. The SOPA thing was defeated, not by our actions so much as by competing lobbyists from Google.

                      Where we have seen an impact is in boycotts and threatened boycotts. Where we have made the news and made the powers that be nervous is when we moved money out of the big banks.  And threatened Susan G. Konen foundation with lack of funding.

                      If the internets fail us, and that is where we are heading now with the "two tier" pricing schemes and throttling of wiki leaks and copyright infringement schemes, if they fail we have no way to communicate. If we were to consolidate resources in such a manner that it would be spectacular, I would suggest starting our own communication company with ISPs as well as phone and DSL. Ma Bell is back with a vengeance but cable companies manage to go around her. Maybe there are ways we could as well.

                      To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. -Joseph Chilton Pearce

                      by glitterscale on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:54:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Any evidence of that anywhere outside of (0+ / 0-)

                    your imagination?

                  •  What are they afraid of? (0+ / 0-)

                    They already own the current POTUS and are hedging on his opponent.

                    Heads they win - tails you lose.

                    When you have $$$$ - you don't fear - you buy all the chips.

                    All the talk of "fairness" is that - talk.  

                    The only difference between political and apolitical is that political's are bigger suckers.

                    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                    by ctexrep on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:02:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  this a movement that will takes years to build to (27+ / 0-)

          the point of even beginning the deep systemic change which needs to happen.

          It has taken 100s of years to build what's here. How can you claim a failure in 8 months? Please, get some perspective.

          •  I get it (0+ / 0-)

            so it takes forever to change. That's a lot of occupying. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

            As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

            by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:41:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is there another option? (13+ / 0-)

              Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you not to criticize if you don't have another option, but it seems to me that this is what we have to work with.  And in my experience it is a lot stronger than you give it credit for.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:09:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ctami, mike101, Rick Aucoin

                it is not what we have to work with. We have a system in place that says you need to draft legislation, then you hire people to push the legislation through congress and you use the grassroots to drum up support while also greasing the appropriate palms. that's how it works. Occupying Wall Street was a neat trick but who the hell thought occupying Oakland would do anything? Oakland? Seriously?

                You have to play the game in order to win it and sitting outside and yelling clever slogans is not playing the game. You have to marshal resources and play the game. It is not as sexy as protesting but that's what has worked and will still work. Protesting without legislative action and court action to back it up is just a waste of time.

                As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:27:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  One Strategy Then? (10+ / 0-)

                  We aren't allowed to work on multiple fronts? To find synergies in a diversity of approaches or test ideas in the wild? One strategy does not take all others off the table.  Take off the blinders, there are many ways to attack problems.

                  Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

                  by Kurt Sperry on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:43:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  protesting... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    grumpelstillchen

                    has shown that it doesn't work anymore. NAFTA was protested, it's a law, The Iraq war was protested world wide and we are still there, Wall Street got bailed out and the states laid off 500,000 educators and Wall Street is still gambling and people are still laid off. Protesting has failed. This has been proven. It is time to do something else.

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:53:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  O.k armchair warrior (0+ / 0-)

                      Since you have a lack of your own ideas, how bout moving aside while the rest actually try to do something about it?

                      •  sure... (0+ / 0-)

                        go ahead and keep making no progress.

                        As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                        by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:07:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Is this part of your comedy routine? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dotdot, chipmo

                          the part where the guy that does nothing but snark suddenly pretends he is running some new movement he pulls out of his ass to excuse his dickishly tearing down the only people who are even fucking trying to do something?

                          Because I am not finding it funny at all.

                          As i say above....no wait, as I say here for the first time, if you do NOT carry through on your new diary series and all of the organizing that goes with it....you are just being a fucking cynical jerk

                    •  You're right. Protesting doesn't work. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      chipmo

                      Civil disobedience, however, does.

                      Your vote is your consent.

                      by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:40:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I wish that were the case (12+ / 0-)

                  You outline the theory of how our Representative Democracy should work, but the actuality belies that.

                  When something is wrong, your duty is to stop it. When people are harmed, your duty is to protect them from harm.

                  When the Police are out of control, your duty is to resist them.

                  When State Legislatures take away your rights, you fight back.

                  No one on this Blog is either advocating for, or supporting violent actions, but they are asking legitimate questions, and as yet there are few good answers.

                  Violence is increasing in the streets, much, if not most of it is suppressive violence. When people decide enough is enough, and fight back, will you condemn them?

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  by twigg on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:03:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That sounds like a yes (5+ / 0-)

                  Elections are the other option.  I've seen how that works on it's own, not impressed.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:05:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am not advocating violence... (0+ / 0-)

                    but the last time there was a serious threat of violence major wholesale changes happened. We have the right to carry a gun. You want to really scare the establishment? arm yourselves.

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:12:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Shorter jbou-spend that spare billion $ lobbying (4+ / 0-)

                  and writing legislation, and then fund some astroturf groups and bribe some politicians to get that legislation passed.

                  What he doesn't tell you is how to get those spare billions of $$$ needed to carry out this strategy.

                  Using this same logic, I can will now tell you the secret of  living like a millionare.  Here it is:

                  Get millions of dollars and use a portion of that money to purchase a mansion and a yacht.  Then you will be living like a millionare.

                  •  want to be a... (0+ / 0-)

                    millionaire? get a dollar from a million people and you don't need billions to make this work.  

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:05:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I think OWS had some very important effect. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  martini

                  The media was running the "deficit" concern nonstop.
                  Then OWS  has a major impact and is able to force the narrative onto inequality, the 1%, redistribution of wealth to the top in the last 30 years, etc.

                  How did they do that? Totally peaceful protestors were pepper-sprayed by out of control cops on behalf of Wall Street.

                  This spawned occupy movements across the country.

                  Since then, Occupy has been in danger of misjudging it's "mandate".

                  Getting wrapped up in this urge to throw a few sucker punches at cops is not very wise strategy.

                  You can't make this stuff up.

                  by David54 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:52:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "greasing the appropriate palms"? (0+ / 0-)

                  are you seriously advocating bribery as the preferable state just because it happens to be what's happening?

                  blink-- pale cold

                  by zedaker on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:23:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  you expected insta-change? the people who have (13+ / 0-)

              control over the world's resources aren't going to give it up over a few protests, no.

              That revolution in Egypt: it was at least 10 years in the making. Protests of different sorts had been happening for a decade. And they still have a long way to go.

              The only quick way to change in power is war. I'm thinking that nobody wants that. Unless they have a magic formula for a non-violent war.

              It's going to take a long time. Dig in.

              •  you need a tax increase of 5%... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jiffypop

                and a capital gains tax increase of 5% and then you need to push for money for  the states to spend on education and infrastructure. That's not an earth shattering list of things that need doing. It can be done using the system that is in place.

                As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:29:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that is not the change we need. we need to end (10+ / 0-)

                  the corruption of capitalism. If all you think the world needs is a 5% tax, well then, clearly, we're in a different movement.

                  •  and replace it with what? (4+ / 0-)

                    unless you're ready to line rich people up and shoot them you ain't getting rid of capitalism and even then you can't stop capitalism. What you can do is to make sure that capitalism works for the most amount of people and you do this using taxes and spreading the wealth around.

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:38:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you mean we need to end the corruption within (0+ / 0-)

                    capitalism, or do you mean we need to end the corruption that is capitalism.
                    Never mind.

                    What we are going to end up with ( if our society endures long enough) is a system that is neither capitalist or Marxist, but one that works.
                    What we have right now is not "free market capitalism".
                    We have massive corporate welfare. We have socialized risk for the 1% and have privatized profit for the 1%.

                    IN the last 30 years there has been a massive redistribution of wealth to the top. Wall Street is a massive tumor sucking the life out of the middle class. So much so that demand is lacking in the system. This type of capitalism is unsustainable. Our civilization, our civil society, is threatened as a result.
                    To fix this problem, we'll need some basic corrections that will restore the robust middle class, so that the poor can climb out of poverty (into what? the growing middle class)
                    This will take the strain off our social safety net and our civil institutions, public schools, libraries, universities, etc.

                    Marx is dead and he ain't coming back.

                    You can't make this stuff up.

                    by David54 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:58:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The problem is that these things do not happen (14+ / 0-)

                  unless people opposing the current system start getting strong enough, then those in power try to placate them and to make reforms.

                  In the absence of that, good luck with simple reforms which you are raising. Why are those in power ignoring simple suggestions of reform by mainstream Keynesian economists? Take a look at american history and you will know that for even simple reforms to happen those in power need to be pushed and pushed hard and that those pushing must be seen as a threat to their interests. This also holds throughout europe as well.

                  We are in a period where those in power thought that the left was destroyed, the trade unions so weak and people so willing to accept the lies being told to them that austerity was the only answer that they thought that people would stand there and be impoverished to protect the needs of the capitalist system for higher profitability at the expense of the incomes and livelihoods of the majority in the advanced capitalist world (we stood there and did little when this happened to those in the capitalist periphery, so why not?). People are starting to fight back, they are fighting back in Greece, they are fighting back in other countries. Perhaps they didn't destroy enough of the left, enough of the unions and hadn't convinced people of their ideology sufficiently. We shall see ... it takes time to build a proper movement to struggle for a better future for all, but many of us are working really hard at doing so.

                  "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                  by NY brit expat on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:42:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  trade unions and the Soviets Union... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FG

                    and the threat of socialism led to major changes in how the pie got divided in this country. We lack a Soviet Union and a threat of socialism and our unions have been decimated. So now we are left with OWS. We're fucked, or we could play the game and draft legislation and work the system to get it turned into law, but that's not sexy like protesting.

                    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                    by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  who is going to draft said legislation? who is (9+ / 0-)

                      going to vote for said non-existent legislation? Have you noticed anyone besides Bernie Sanders advocating reforms of these types? He has far fewer legions than even the pope. So, how do we force reform and change? I do a hell of a lot more than simply going to demonstrations as do many of the people commenting here. We need to build a movement independent of the parties in government both to force them to do simple reform (you can talk all you want about non-existent legislation sponsored by those that actually benefit from the way the current system is structured) and to build for serious changes. Waiting for the beneficiaries of the current system to reform it in the absence of any pressure is your right, but you will be waiting for a long-time, meanwhile, I will keep working to build that movement I talked about ...

                      "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                      by NY brit expat on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:11:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  good for you (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mike101

                        I will kick in for a new sleeping bag so you are more comfortable while you occupy.

                        We have lawyers right here on this site that can draft legislation and we can pool our money to hire lobbyists and we can do our own grassroots door knocking campaign to get people on board with the new legislation and we can make calls to people to have them call their senators and reps and then we can also show up at town hall meeting and all that other stuff. It will take a coordinated effort, but it can happen and it would be independent of the Democratic party.

                        As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

                        by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:16:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  So basically you agree with growing OWS. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      elwior, congenitalefty

                      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

                      by tardis10 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:18:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Yes we can! (6+ / 0-)

                  We are the change we have been waiting for, so send those bucks and votes to the Dems. and they will fight for an  economy that's equitable and people can live in. They will curb the bankster's and stop the endless wars. they will call off the dogs and give me back my habeaus corpus.

                  They will once elected work hard to restore your civil and human rights yes indeed we can do it. Right.  Are you drunk? Have you fallen on your head? Did you not notice that our electoral system in fact the whole government is now owned lock stock and oil barrel by these goddamn arrogant globalizing  sociopaths from hell? The police are nothing but their militarized goon squad.  

                  We did have a system that while flawed kept the wolves from the door, but it was deemed a quaint piece of paper.  I'm really glad that people worldwide are taking to the streets sometimes and this is one of them. People have power and when the theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism goes too far they use it.

                  This current lot in power is too big not to fall. voting won't do a damn thing at this point other then keep the hardliners at bay maybe. There is no representative system left jbou. There is no Law left it's the way forward the new world order.

                  OWS is global and it's not going away mainly because the greedy power happy sociopaths won't stop. They never do unless people stand up and stop them.        

                •  If you truly believe that's all we need (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chipmo, congenitalefty

                  you were living an amazingly sheltered life before the most recent crash.

                  Your vote is your consent.

                  by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:43:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  And--boy--do we need a change- (0+ / 0-)

            "Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you." Bishop Peter Storey---Central Methodist Mission, Johannesburg, June 1981

            by lyvwyr101 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, this. (15+ / 0-)
      People are awake. What they don't need is people telling them to wake up. It assumes ignorance of the population. I would say the public is more apathetic than ignorant.
      I think this is a point that would be well-taken by many proponents of protests like Occupy.

      When person A tells person B to "wake up!", one is making the presumption that the only logical and reasonable course of action is to be taking whatever action person A is taking; the presumption here is that person B couldn't possibly be aware of everything, and is necessarily ignorant, because if he/she wasn't ignorant, he/she would be taking exactly the same action as person A.

      That does preclude alternative interpretations as to why person B isn't taking the same rhetorical actions as person A, one of which is (as you write) apathy.

      Another alternative is that person B is aware of the problem and cares about the problem, but doesn't see person A's prescribed action as an efficacious means of bringing about a solution. Person B could think there is a different means that will have efficacy in bringing about a solution, or could think that there is no situation in which he/she can take efficacious action to bring about a solution, but the common thread in both is that he/she believe that person A's prescribed action would not be a good use of his/her own time and/or resources.

      That, I think, has been Occupy's rhetorical problem from the get-go—not necessarily to persuade people that a problem exists, but to persuade people that joining the Occupy movement would be an efficacious form of action in bringing about solutions to the problem. Thus far, I've seen little if any evidence that it is efficacious, and that is by far the most significant reason that I don't participate in the movement despite my agreement with many of its critiques of our contemporary economic and political system.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:09:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you said that in a nicer way then I did... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Reggid, Via Chicago, Rick Aucoin

        and I agree with you. I might need to hire you as a spokesperson for me. I am a bit abrasive.

        As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

        by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:21:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What have you seen that is efficacious? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LucyandByron, Tonedevil, JesseCW
        •  Writing or withholding really big checks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Markoff Chaney

          Have to say, LBJ wasn't counting on getting the big bucks from people like my parents when he legalized mixed-race marriages.  O tempora, o mores!

          "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

          by LucyandByron on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:06:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What I see as efficacious is irrelevant... (0+ / 0-)

          ...when the decision at hand is whether or not to participate in something like Occupy.

          When people look at something like Occupy, they do a sort of cost-benefit analysis; will the cost to me in terms of resources, time, effort, etc. be worth the benefits it accrues for me or for society?

          If people perceive few if any benefits from Occupy (i.e., see it as non-efficacious) while watching the costs increase (police beatings, violent clashes, etc.) then they're going to be less interested in becoming a part of it.

          Because when it comes right down to it, just about everyone likes not being beaten, and has something they'd rather be doing—so if people don't see Occupy as a means to a better end, they're not going to want to participate.

          Personally, I see spending the day in my garden or writing as a much better use of my time than going to an Occupy activity, precisely because I see my participation in Occupy as something that is unlikely to further my political goals, and I like gardening or writing more than I like protesting and risking violence.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:17:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you see doing, basically, nothing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, chipmo, Damnit Janet

            as a better, more efficacious solution?

            Interesting viewpoint.

            Enjoy your garden. I take it you are not in danger of foreclosure then?

            •  No, I see doing nothing... (0+ / 0-)

              ...as preferable to expending effort on ineffective action.

              I'm not in fact in danger of foreclosure, because I'm renting—but even if I were, that still doesn't get out of the basic dilemma.

              A clear line would still need to be drawn between my participation in Occupy and my getting out of danger of foreclosure in order to get me to participate in it for that reason.

              Participation in Occupy carries a cost with it—a cost in terms of time, in terms of resources, and apparently in terms of physical danger to oneself.

              It continues to behoove the Occupy movement, therefore, to convince those who agree with its aims that their participation in Occupy will be sufficiently efficacious as to justify that cost. That's true no matter what a person's situation is.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  People who need change are engaged (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chipmo, congenitalefty

            in very different calculations than people who think change might be nice.

            Your vote is your consent.

            by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:45:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then the question becomes, what is the critical (0+ / 0-)

              mass of people who need change required for a movement to become effective?

              How bad will it have to get before people decide they have to fight for their rights, and that the means they use aren't necessarily the means that this site will approve?

              No longer rating comments, thanks to a cowardly fucktard moderator whose ass I will not kiss.

              by khereva on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:37:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No they don't. The variables are the same. (0+ / 0-)

              The values for "cost" and "benefit" may be much different, but it's fundamentally the same analysis.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:41:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  so, I write a whole article on the absurdity (18+ / 0-)

        of judging people who face up to an army and all you can focus on is the "wake up" line.

        Hello?

        •  I was responding to a comment I saw... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that I agreed with and was interested in expanding upon.

          I wasn't aware that each and every comment in a diary had to respond and refer to the entirety of the diary.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:14:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I can understand an aversion (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Tonedevil, tardis10

        to certain kinds of rhetoric as well. Personally, I don't share the aversion, but again, I can understand how it can be a turn off.

        You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

        by mahakali overdrive on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:48:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Totally (6+ / 0-)

      disagree.

      You have bad information, and you apparently don't know how things play out in the media.

      First they ignored us...

      Your opinion is misguided, and you believe that, because a few tsk tsk'd OWS, it is general consensus.  If you listen to ONLY the media you would certainly believe that, but I think more information on bank misbehavior, potical misbehavior, and certainly evidence that the US is descending more deeply into a police state has seeped deep into the collective psyche of the American population.

      You think you have a better way, well, you are encouraged to develop it.

      But do not discount the gains of OWS!

      •  that's called wishful thinking (0+ / 0-)

        I want proof. You offer no proof, just wishful thinking.

        As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

        by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think the Proof can be Found (7+ / 0-)

          ...in a survey of Editorial cartoons covering the span of OWS timeline.

          Open any Jekyllnhyde diary.

          You may put zero stock in editorial cartoons (and other news coverage), but I read them as a pretty good barometer of the times, politically.

          We changed the dialogue.  For as much as they tried o ignore us, we changed the dialogue anyway!

          Legislation may follow.  Before OWS, it was certainly not!

          •  how do you figure? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG, Rick Aucoin

            I base my evaluation on what legislation is turned into law.

            If you based what's going on on political cartoons the 80's Reagan would have never been President because he was a moron, Bush 1 would have never made it because he was an out of touch spineless DC insider, Clinton would have never made it because he was a womanizing whore, Bush 2 would have never made it because he was a moron, and Obama would have never made it because who votes for the black guy with the terrorist name. The political cartoons are fringe at best and offer nothing of substance.

            You did not change the dialogue. People are still talking about debts and austerity and there's been no legislation to deal with the recession and the budget shortfalls on the state level. OWS has not done anything to help the country.

            As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

            by jbou on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:18:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Property rights have always trumped (20+ / 0-)

    human rights.  Had to.  Otherwise the ownership of humans by other humans could not be legal.  And, indeed, ownership persists.  Juveniles are legally owned by their parents.
    When Dubya postulated the U. S. as an ownership society, that wasn't hyperbole. That ownership serves as a sop, to disguise that human rights are disregarded and dismissed, just hasn't been made clear. That private property is supposed to make up for having one's privates violated hasn't registered universally.  But, OWS is getting there.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:51:55 PM PDT

  •  That's democracy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skymutt, Reggid

    The people have decided that they want streets to be for traffic, not protesting.  

    If Occupy weren't allergic to real-world politics* then that would be something they could work on changing.

    * But for Seneca Doane, who in addition to being an awesome guy all around is running for a seat in the CA legislature.

  •  Thank you (36+ / 0-)

    The fact that I get an HR for saying that people have a moral right to self defense even if it s the cops attacking them while people can openly advocate for the killing of American citizen is absurd.  People on this site have advocated violence for a long, long time.  It's only when that violence is directed upward is it a problem.

    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:57:31 PM PDT

  •  There's no shortage of diaries here... (5+ / 0-)

    ...even by those who are devoted to nonviolence on the part of protesters, who are critical of many of the acts of violence done by law enforcement officers in response to Occupy protests.

    Those do take on a bit less of a hortatory tone, but I think that's more to do with the fact that only one side of this conflict is likely to be posting on or reading this site; unless they're not revealing a thing about themselves, I've seen few if any posts on this topic on this site by the people giving the police their orders, or from the police themselves.

    As to the broader point about violence, Max Weber writes that the state has a monopoly on violence; while I do criticize the ways in which the state uses violence much of the time, and I have no doubt that he (and other social and political theorists) would (and do) find much to quibble with in the legitimation structures of many of the institutions of the contemporary state, I find his conception of the monopoly on violence hard to argue with.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:58:46 PM PDT

    •  In political science (11+ / 0-)

      the state is generally taken to be defined as an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a certain geographical area.  It is the defining feature of governments.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:03:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        roadbear, AoT, wu ming, congenitalefty

        So the broader point about support for a state that uses violence could be one of three things:

        (a) critique of the ways in which the state uses violence, in which case I agree with many of the criticisms;

        (b) a critique that justifies violent action against the state by suggesting that the American state has lost legitimacy and thus does not legitimately hold a monopoly on violence; or

        (c) critique of the notion of the state as having a monopoly on violence at all.

        I'm on board with (a), at least insofar as it describes a philosophical position that must be tempered by a pragmatic approach that takes seriously the limitations and boundaries of effective political and rhetorical action, but I find (b) problematic in the present case, and (c) problematic in the whole.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:14:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it's interesting though because (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, UnaSpenser, congenitalefty

          How you define violence greatly influences C.  A lot of my thinking on this is informed by Robert Paul Wolff in his essay On Violence.  One of the things he shows is that the idea of legitimacy is at very least confused and at most complete nonsense.  Authority is another thing he talks about, specifically the tension between authority and ethical or moral action.

          In regards to the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence I find that it isn't really true in any real world cases.  Here in the US, and virtually everywhere, there is a strong exception to this in regards to self-defense.  We all have a right to use violence to protect our life and that right isn't presumed to come from the state, it's given popular legitimacy.  The state acknowledges that right, but doesn't confer the legitimacy.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:51:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What a great diary, Una!!! (18+ / 0-)
    The very moment those police don those weapons, they are the aggressor. They are making it known that they will use whatever force they feel like it to achieve whatever compliance they  - or their masters - want from us.
    I was called a member of FTP in another diary.  I am still in shock because they wanted kos to stop this discussion too. Thank you for stating what I wish I could have said so eloquently.

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:05:01 PM PDT

  •  Why indeed, Una? The fact that the question (24+ / 0-)

    in your title even needs to be asked says it all about the direction of DKos.

    It's crystal clear that, to many "liberal" Kossacks, what was done to you was "regrettable" but nonetheless "justified..."

    because someone, somewhere, said something mean to a cop.

    Thanks for braving the "no violence" absolutists here and saying what needs to be said.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:06:41 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Una ... (41+ / 0-)

    there comes a time when breaking the rules is an essential part of protest, that holds for civil disobedience as well as self-defense. Somehow people do not understand that it is the state that overwhelmingly commits violence in our societies at demonstrations and that is part and parcel of their keeping us powerless.

    I resent intensely that people in the states tell people fighting in other countries how to conduct their struggles as if they have some moral authority or knowledge of these people's struggles and situations. Quite honestly, these same people do not understand that for the most part violence is being conducted by the state, by the right wing and by the powerful against those fighting for a better future.

    If the military and police follow policy disrupting people trying to protest (which is a civil right), if these police attack innocent people at their own judgment or the behest of the powerful then they are serving the interest of the powerful. The law is set up by the powerful to serve their interests, they set the rules. There are rules and laws that are immoral to follow. This is not a call for violence for no reason, this is not a call for hurting another person, but it is a recognition that the right to protect yourself is legitimate and that is recognised in law.

    Moreover, when people participate in civil disobedience, they knowingly break the law to make a point. However, unless we are living under occupation, under a police state, that is not a justification for physically assaulting people; remove them non-violently, arrest them if you want, but physical assault is not a normal sane reaction for a member of the police against fellow citizens.

    Will republish to anti-capitalist chat

    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

    by NY brit expat on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:12:20 PM PDT

  •  This theme of violence by wearing gear (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry J, FG, sviscusi, MGross

    is pretty silly.

    It seems that you and many others are so intent on pretending that unaccceptable force is being used that you are creating a kind of Virtual Violence, where gear itself is a form of violence even as its not being used.  

    Instead of building shakier and shakier intellectual constructs based on symbolism, how about protesting something besides the right to protest something anywhere?  

    BTW: not fully armed.   The riot gear doesn't include a firearm.   If you think a baton is being fully armed....

    Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

    by Inland on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:26:03 PM PDT

  •  Well OK then: YOU COPS OUGHT TO BE NONVIOLENT!! (6+ / 0-)

    now you can't say you didn't see it on Dailykos.
    Youre welcome

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:29:31 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this diary. (12+ / 0-)

    There is a large group at this site who wants discussions of police violence to just go away. As long as cops are acting like thugs, people need to keep talking about it and keep exposing it.

    "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

    by Broke And Unemployed on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:30:11 PM PDT

  •  I both agree and disagree. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, roadbear, AoT, MrFrost, sviscusi

    I agree that the police are out of control. I think the entire police system in this country needs a complete revamp/overhaul. I completely agree with the message of the occupiers and I fully support the movement. I hate war and violence, and I in no way support it. I do my best to vote for whoever is least likely to continue wars. Obama hasn't been perfect, but he is better than the alternative. I know some will say, we shouldn't settle. I'm not settling, I am voting for the best available at any given time. We vote in the primaries to get the best candidates we can, but once we reach the general election, we also have to make a decision of who to vote for. The person who came through the democratic primary may not be as much of a pacifist as we want, but that person is likely much more of a pacifist than the Republican candidate. At that point we have to make an unwelcome, but necessary, decision. Who will do the least damage? And I totally support holding whoever is currently in charge, regardless of their party, accountable for everything they do. I think we should push them, I think we should always be trying to get them to see our point of view. But lets keep in perspective too that us not voting for people who authorize drone strikes, if the alternative is much worse, may not necessarily be a good idea. It's a moral dilemma we all have to decide on our own, but I wouldn't say it's a morally black and white decision. There are a lot of things to consider.

    Further, here is the other issue where I disagree. While I am totally against police violence, I am also against violence from any of the occupiers. "Just a stick of balsa wood that breaks easily" hitting someone is still hitting someone with a stick that broke over their head. Throwing a water bottle at someone is still throwing a water bottle at someone and yes, a full water bottle with a cap thrown with enough force could indeed injure someone, same with the stick if it hits someone in the right place, and with enough force. Now don't get me wrong, I would never for an instant dream of saying that those actions are equivalent to police violence. Riot police have military grade crowd control weapons and occupiers are heavily outmatched. Any violence the police can, and do, do is much, much worse. However, I don't like to see any violence downplayed because "it is just a stick of wood that breaks easily", or "it is just a water bottle". Violence is violence, and it doesn't help. It isn't doing us any favors. It simply isn't a good idea. As a pacifist I find any and all violence to be awful.

    What I take issue with is equating anyone who disagrees with these small acts of violence as someone who doesn't also complain about police violence. I have experienced not police violence, but police abuse first hand, I don't want to get into the story, but it left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I have no faith in the police system whatsoever. I think that what the police have done to the occupiers is much worse than anything any occupiers have done towards police. I disagree with the wars and violence in the middle east. I have hated the whole situation since the Afghanistan war. I was just a kid when we first went to war, I was actually a Republican then, and I thought that the idea of a "war on terror", was complete and utter nonsense. I have been adamantly anti-war all my life. But just because I disagree with a few very small acts by a few occupiers who certainly do NOT represent the group as a whole, that means that I support police brutality, drone strikes and violence in general? I do not think that is a fair argument to make. I can take issue with all violence, I can disagree with the actions of a few occupiers who don't represent the whole movement in one isolated situation without disagreeing with the movement as a whole.

    Besides, I think it likely that those who did violence in the incident everyone is talking about were members of the black bloc. And we all know they don't really support occupy. They are anarchists using the movement to spread their message of violent revolution. They like to provoke the police, they like to get aggressive. And whether intentionally or not, they make occupy look bad. But they are not occupy, they will never be occupy, they are simply taking advantage. I think instead of saying that anyone who disagrees with the actions of a very few people who do not represent occupy, are supporters of police violence, we should call out the actions as clearly not part of occupy as a whole, and use the publicity as a chance to remind everyone what occupy's message really is. To remind them that we are up against a police state. To remind them that the police come out in force with full scale military style weaponry, and that even if someone were to attack them they weapons would be laughable in comparison. That the idea of occupy being a "threat" that requires riot gear is ridiculous. That occupy is a peaceful movement, and that the cops in riot gear is an obvious example of everything that is wrong with our country, and everything that needs to change.

    But let's not divide, over something like this, let's unite. I for one disagree with all violence. But I do not think the actions of those protesters can be considered anywhere close to the same league of violence as the police. I think the police state is completely broken, I think our system of government is failing us completely. But I can disagree with a few small acts of violence from the side I agree with, and still disagree completely with the other side and all of their much worse acts of violence. Just my two cents, if they mean anything. And Una, while I have a slight disagreement with your article, I think it's well written, and I thank you for what you have done for the occupy movement. I admire your courage in standing up to the police, and I am sorry about your injury. I hope all who are capable will continue to stand up to the police and protest for what is right.

    Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

    by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:31:42 PM PDT

    •  So many things to say.. (6+ / 0-)

      but this really stuck out

      Besides, I think it likely that those who did violence in the incident everyone is talking about were members of the black bloc. And we all know they don't really support occupy. They are anarchists using the movement to spread their message of violent revolution. They like to provoke the police, they like to get aggressive. And whether intentionally or not, they make occupy look bad. But they are not occupy, they will never be occupy, they are simply taking advantage.
      Who are you (or anyone) to say what is or who is occupy?  Occupy is a horizontal movement that is open to anyone.  It is not a bureaucracy or a secret club with membership requirements.  I reject the notion of good protester vs bad protester because that is just another way that society works to divide us and keep us from finding common ground.  You are speaking for yourself only when you make statements like that.  You do not represent me and I am part of occupy.

      FYI if you are part of occupy and you have more than 10 participants and you do any organizing at all I bet you have stood right next to/ate dinner with/went on a march with an anarchist and maybe even one who has engaged in black bloc tactics.  Shocking, I know.  

      Eat your pheasant...drink your wine. Your days are numbered bourgeois swine

      by JustJennifer on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:39:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I respect your opinion. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, AoT

        That is a good question, what is occupy, who is to say what occupy is? On the other hand, I feel you share a similar sentiment when you say  "I reject the notion of good protester vs bad protester because that is just another way that society works to divide us and keep us from finding common ground." This is how I feel when someone says that anyone who disagrees with violence on the part of someone who says they are part of occupy, is somehow okay with violence by the police, or drone strikes in middle east. It only works to divide us instead of finding common ground. You say I do no represent you, I do not claim to represent you. However, does occupy as a majority support violent tactics? Most of I have talked to do not, of course it is open to anyone. But occupy does have some common goals that most share. You also speak for yourself, and not the rest of occupy, of course. But I respect your opinion all the same.

        Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

        by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think there is an important distinction to be (4+ / 0-)

          made between disagreeing with or denouncing a tactic and denouncing people.  And that's what JJ was getting at.  I'm not opposed per se to breaking windows as a tactic and you are opposed to it.  I'm not going to denounce you for opposing or supporting that specific tactic.

          This is how I feel when someone says that anyone who disagrees with violence on the part of someone who says they are part of occupy, is somehow okay with violence by the police, or drone strikes in middle east.
          The problem is that a huge number of people do just that.  I can think of maybe ten people here on DKos that fall into that category and actually say it.  Of course, that's the problem with these sorts of diaries, there are always those on the margins.

          That said, the conversation happening in this thread is exactly the conversation we need to have and I'm glad that it is happening.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:42:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good points. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ladyjames, AZ Sphinx Moth

            While I disagree with something like breaking windows as a tactic, I can say that I would never judge a person or specifically denounce them for doing it because there is no way I can know all the facts. I disagree with violence in practice, but I would never judge a specific situation because real life is not theory and does not exist in a vacuum. Mitigating circumstances do exist, and in most situation those not in the situation (obviously including me), do not know all the facts. I would also not denounce someone for supporting the tactic, I would only denounce the tactic itself. The reason being that the people who agree with the tactic most likely have good reasons for why they support it, and I accept that their opinion on the issue is different. For the most part it is likely that I agree with that person much, much more than I disagree. And I would not let a small disagreement get in the way of working productively with like minded people, or having a productive conversation.

            "The problem is that a huge number of people do just that.  I can think of maybe ten people here on DKos that fall into that category and actually say it.  Of course, that's the problem with these sorts of diaries, there are always those on the margins."

            I disagree unequivocally with those people. If one is against violence by someone in occupy, they should be against war, drone strikes and police brutality. I suppose my main disagreement is that I felt from the way it (the diary) was written that all those who are against small acts of violence by those in occupy, are okay with police brutality and war, and do not speak out against them. I myself know that I (in theory), oppose all violence. I have not specifically seen these people on Dkos, but if you say so, I do not doubt that they exist. I think that if they are going to protest any violence from occupy they should also be protesting the police, and the wars.

            I agree that we need to have this conversation, and I too am glad it is happening. It has been illuminating for me, and I enjoy reading all of the diverse viewpoints.

            Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

            by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:55:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  what I am saying about police violence is this: (9+ / 0-)

              when a protester commits a very minor act of violence, they are are condemned and people will claim that the whole movement loses credibility.

              But, the police commit horrifying acts of violence every day. While people may speak out against it, I don't hear people saying that the police have lost all credibility. If we did, we would no longer accept their authority as valid. We would not accept anything they do as legitimate.

              Nor, when our president uses drones to assassinate and American citizen without a trial, killing children along with the targeted person, do people here say, "He has now lost all credibility. We no longer consider him legitimate."

              People in power break laws all the time and we continue to support them. They commit violence all the time and we continue to support them.

              But, a few, relatively powerless protesters wield sticks and people are ready to condemn an entire movement. Support removed if that continues.

              So, we don't remove support from those committing ongoing atrocities and abuse of power, but we remove it from the powerless for the least infractions.

              When people start withdrawing support for politicians, corporations and any institutions which engage in any violence or harm against living beings, then I might have an iota of respect for this denouncing of a grassroots movement.

              But, we're all here pushing for Obama and other Democrats who are funders, wielders, directors of war and supporters of very harmful corporations. So, I have zero respect for the bullshit of judging the Davids who, when facing the overwhelming forces of Goliath commit the cardinal sin of using the slingshot.

              •  Anyone who would (4+ / 0-)

                condemn the entire occupy movement, because of a few small acts of violence because of a few members.

                And at the same time:

                Do not condemn the police for their militarization, their brutality, their constant abuses of power. Do not condemn anyone in power, whether it be the president, those in congress, and the senate, or anyone at the state and local level, who support violence and war. Do not condemn corporations who support organizations that support violence and brutality. I also do not respect such in any awy. If someone holds that viewpoint, it is hypocrisy, it is inconsistent.

                I disagree with violence as you know, but I personally disagree with all violence. Anti-war, anti police brutality and abuse of power. Against drone strikes, torture, rendition, holding people without trial, etc.

                I have no love or respect for the police. I have had things happen to me personally, and since those encounters, I do not trust them at all. I have also heard many, many stories. No one I know trusts the cops anymore, and it seems to be becoming more of a widespread opinion among my generation.

                I fully support OWS. I feel that if a few members of OWS were to engage in a small act of violence (even if it weren't justified), you cannot say it reflects on the whole organization, since OWS is an organic grassroots movement. On the other hand, when you see constant abuse of power from an organization like the police or the United States government that has a top down authority structure and people in power at the top, the entire organization can and should be held accountable. I am of the mind that the police and the government no longer deserve our respect at all.

                Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

                by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:20:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is a huge difference between (5+ / 0-)

                  condemning a centrally organized institutions where individuals have authority over others for the actions of parts of that organization and condemning an entire movement for the actions of a few people in a couple of cities.  It is not at all inconsistent to hold a police department responsible for the actions of people that it can choose to remove.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:15:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  It seems to me... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        farmerchuck, AoT, dear occupant

        ...OWS, like so many leaderless movements, suffers from a lack of well, authority.

        I can perceive what OWS is, but I cannot change it without participating actively.

        I think participants are remarkably self-organizing, but there will always be dissent and grumbling without a Messiah to lead the way.  Seems like you have to accept that as a feature of the chosen organizing principle, one of the tenets of which is "No Leaders".

        Gotta take the good with the bad, I guess.

    •  Very thoughtful comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crazy Moderate, AoT, dear occupant

      Pretty much a quality diary in its own right.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:46:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you can't "be a member" of black bloc. Please (12+ / 0-)

      educate yourself.

      Black bloc is a tactic, not a group or ideology.

      The folks I know who have been trained and employ it, only do so to help people who are being harassed by police. That is, they are willing to put themselves between someone and the police to protect that person.

      Stop believing the stupid media hype.

      Please note, too, I am not advocating violence. I am non-violent. What I'm saying is that judging someone for poking the raging shark in the nose when it is coming to eat you is absurd. Even though I have been there - with an LRAD ready to go, guns in hand and batons flying - and have maintained by own non-violence, I could never judge someone else or delegitimize a fundamentally good cause because someone wielded a stick at people in armor.

      •  I am not judging them. (0+ / 0-)

        I disagree with the idea of violence, but I do not judge people.  If it is an organized tactic that people train others in, and that others are trained to employ, I would consider them a group. I do not consider them a largely organized group, or an organization as such. But what should I refer to them as then? I get my news about occupy from people on Daily Kos who are involved in occupy, and others who I work with in person involved in occupy. I do not trust the media.

        If all you are saying is that we should not judge others for their actions in these tense and dangerous situations, then I agree. I am not judgmental. I disagree with the concept of violence, and I do not consider it (in theory), to ever be the right answer. However, I would never go so far as to judge someone, I do not know all the facts of a particular situation. I do not know exactly what someone is going through. And I fully support the cause of Occupy. I simply disagree with violent tactics in general.

        Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

        by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:05:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you need to understand what they train (11+ / 0-)

          for. The tactic isn't about being violent. It is about stopping violence. They are willing to impede the police when the police are committing violence. They put themselves at risk, mostly pulling people out. And they are then targeted by the police for it. A friend of mine was there, she was reaching in to pull people away who were being hit. For this, she was bludgeoned and her entire torso is bruised.

          You need to realize that the police are trained to see everything as 'violence' and to respond with violence. We were told that linking arms if "resisting arrest" which to them legitimizes using violence against us. They almost always use disproportionate response. They are trained to have power over, not to work with people. The black bloc tactic in a protest is used to minimize the impact of this. If you're being hurt, you call for it and people will put themselves in harm's way to protect you.

          A very beautiful instance of this was shown in the footage of the kids being beaten on the college campus last fall. A woman was being hit and back into a bush so she had nowhere to go. Several people stepped in front her so she could get out and they took some harsh hits for it before backing away themselves.

          That was black bloc.

          •  Very interesting. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            Because I have heard accounts of people who are referred to by the same name, but I have heard people with a much different idea of it (who are involved in occupy). However, admittedly occupy is an extremely broad and diverse group that anyone can join. Anyone can take on any part of occupy, claim any label they want. And not be in agreement with what most in the movement believe or strive for. I do not disagree with the tactics you just mentioned. I have heard something much different from others.

            Regardless, I didn't mean for my post to be primarily about black bloc, that was, I believe, part of one paragraph out of five.

            My main point is that just because someone criticizes violence by a small amount of people involved in occupy who do not represent the movement as a whole (and should not be considered to tarnish the movement of a whole), does not mean they do not speak out way more harshly against police violence. It does not mean they do not speak out against drone strikes in the middle east. It doesn't mean they do not raise their voices much more loudly against war.

            I do not believe in judging others, but I disagree with violence unless it truly is self defense. Of course people have different opinions on what is self defense. I hope my main point can avoid being obscured because of one paragraph of which we keep discussing.

            Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

            by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:21:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, yes, everybody will have their own ways (8+ / 0-)

              of naming what they do. But, black bloc is not historically violent. (Anarchists define violence as doing harm to people. They don't see property destruction as violence. They see property held by those who abuse power as fair game. So, they don't engage random vandalism. Anyone doing that is just being a punk.)

              If there is anyone advocation violence against human beings, they are not being anarchist. If they are committing vandalism which is not targeted at a person or institution which is abusively wielding power, they are not anarchists. They are hiding their own penchant for meaningless chaos behind the cover of a very legitimate worldview.

              That the populous of the United States is so willing to avoid understanding what anarchism is and allow the State to vilify it as an excuse to exercise undue force against anyone who doesn't bow to their authority is a deep shame. Those screaming "fucking anarchists!" around here are as bad as those who call anyone who is a right-winger a "socialist!" or a "commie!" It sounds ignorant. More than that, it sounds like willingness to be a tool for the powers that be.

              So, forgive me if this particular point of yours got under my craw.

              I do appreciate that you have your own philosophy and don't judge others when they don't live up to it. And I appreciate your willingness to keep chatting.

              •  Very interesting comments on anarchists. (5+ / 0-)

                I would be interested in seeing a full diary that really goes into detail on that. I think it would present an interesting viewpoint on anarchists that some people on this site might not have considered. I have always had mixed feelings on that particular subject, and would be interested in learning more about it. Your take on it is definitely very interesting.

                I too appreciate chatting with you, this has been an illuminating and enjoyable discussion. After talking to you more I understand your diary better and I see from what (and AoT) said, that when talking about those who were against acts of violence from OWS, but didn't speak out against the police, or the military, that you were speaking about a specific bloc of people here at Dkos.

                I hope you can get your injuries taken care of and get back to your gardening really soon. In a perfect world, the police would be paying your medical bills for the injuries you incurred.

                Our love will always be more powerful than your hate.

                by Crazy Moderate on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:08:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is so much misunderstanding of anarchism (5+ / 0-)

                  It's kind of like when an atheist tries to explain what it's like living in a world where 95% of people believe in God to one of those people who believes in God.

                  Anarchism has a long and proud tradition of works in political philosophy that are either entirely ignored or mischaracterized [much like Marx is completely ignored or misunderstood by those who rail against Marxism].

                  First and foremost though, anarchists are egalitarians & don't believe that social order should be structured on hierarchy & authority - that these are unnecessary constructs reiterated by our social and economic orders to the benefit of the few. Pretty much all versions of anarchist critiques of the state begin here.

  •  The Militarization of US Police Forces (17+ / 0-)

    is a larger phenomenon than simply what we see at protests, though the "Miami model" in response to Seattle was pretty well settled by the mid-way point of George W. Bush's Administration.

    The mindset of militarization is the thing we should be exploring, unpacking, decrying and delegitimating.

    I'm not sure that protest language or action is the most productive path to take on this very, very large question.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

  •  You law abiding citizens, Anne Feeney...... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, PhilJD, JesseCW

    The law is supposed to serve us and so are the police.

    Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

    by allenjo on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:35:42 PM PDT

  •  "Protest Turns Violent" (11+ / 0-)

    And then under the headline we find out it's the police who turned violent on peaceful protestors.

    It makes as much sense as heading all rapes with: "Woman turns sexual." I mean wtf?

  •  It's Clear the Cops Have Made Their Choice, to (4+ / 0-)

    answer your title question.

    Put me down for Gandhi and King troll. I like their track record.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:44:02 PM PDT

  •  I think it's important to separate the specific (17+ / 0-)

    ... from the general.

    The diary that started this discussion this morning was interesting in that it used a stand-alone image to depict what most of us have become conditioned to expect from the police in these situations.

    I had seen the entire sequence of images prior to reading the diary so I knew there was more to the story. I think it can be quite difficult for most of us, myself included, to be empathetic enough to understand what motivates those who may hold different/opposing views to our own. Having seen the entire sequence of images that led to the photo highlighted in that diary (and held up as an example of a typical police overreaction), I thought to myself, "If I saw a guy about deliver what appeared to be a second blow to a fellow officer with a double-thick stick (that was not like the first stick used to strike the officer), I probably would have taken immediate action to stop it, too."

    So, in that regard, I was able to understand why the officer was lashing out.

    That said, your diary makes a broader point about people here insisting that Occupy be, essentially, a non-violent movement. In general, those instincts are correct. The movement gained credibility because of the non-violence of the participants in the face of overwhelming, often violent, police response, your own case included.

    I wonder, do you think your situation would have been improved had you resisted?

    On the other hand, to say that people who advocate for a non-violent movement aren't saying the same thing to the police seems an over-generalization. I suspect that most who are advocating for OWS to maintain its non-violent posture are also advocating locally for police to be non-violent.

    In the case of the NATO protests, despite the confrontations yesterday, the protests have been remarkably free of violence. Frankly, I've been impressed with the discipline and commitment of the protesters to non-violence. And what we did not see -- as we have seen in the past in Chicago -- is police wading into crowds and swinging wildly or chasing protesters down the street and cracking heads, en masse, as we have seen in other cities.

    •  my point isn't to condone violence. it's about (14+ / 0-)

      judging people who are facing off with an incredible force.

      The energy gets pretty high in those tense moments. And we, the protesters, know we're facing a force with potential for violence way beyond anything we could endure. It takes an incredible amount of self-discipline to maintain a non-reactive stance while you're watching people being beaten. I can't tell you how emotional it was fore me watching what was happening to one of my friends while I was being arrested.

      So, if a protester or two "loses it" and lashes out, I don't think it serves any purpose to claim that the movement loses credibility for that. We should all be awed that it has been so well-handled to date.

      The reason I used the headline I did was that I have seen people demand that the Occupy movement be non-violent, but I have never seen them demand the same from the police. Much less our elected officials. Is there a single campaign to demand that our presidential candidates renounce violence? We don't seem to mind that Obama directs assassinations, wars and hasn't once spoken out about the police violence against peaceful protesters here. Did he say a word about Scott Olsen?

      But, a couple, out of many thousands of people do something so minor as swing a stick and people are willing to declare the movement invalid. To condemn those people.

      Its the judgement and the use of some purity test, which only serves the powers that be, which I am railing against.

    •  Good comment (4+ / 0-)

      I take issue with a couple parts, most importantly this:

      On the other hand, to say that people who advocate for a non-violent movement aren't saying the same thing to the police seems an over-generalization. I suspect that most who are advocating for OWS to maintain its non-violent posture are also advocating locally for police to be non-violent.
      The vast, vast majority of people on this site advocate for occupy to be non-violent, but many of them also claim that the police are just misunderstood and really just want to help people.
      I wonder, do you think your situation would have been improved had you resisted?
      This is one of those things that varies greatly.  The majority of people who have been seriously injured were not resisting.  Since Occupy Oakland has taken a more militant defensive tact there have been less serious injuries.  On an individual level it's certainly true that if I were getting arrested by five cops I would end up worse off if I resisted than if I didn't nine times out of ten.  But we are talking about this in the context of larger protests, not just in cases of individual arrests.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:52:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "The vast majority of people on this site..." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Unit Zero, jiffypop

        I disagree with your feeling about what the "vast majority on this site" support. There has been a great deal written here about police violence and over-reaction in relation to Occupy.

        As for this point...

        Since Occupy Oakland has taken a more militant defensive tact there have been less serious injuries.
        ... I would suggest that the primary reason for any claimed downturn in injuries is the public outrage over the heavy-handed police tactics in the earlier protests. The mayor and her deputies had to back off her quasi-military tactics after the public display of unnecessary street violence by police.
        •  To be clear (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher, chipmo

          I was saying that the vast majority of people advocate for occupy to be non-violent.

          And while there has been a lot written about police violence there has been a lot written by a relatively small group of people.

          I mean, have you spoken against police violence?  Or any violence other than the things that happen in the context of Occupy?  And I don't mean that as an accusation, I ask that because I see the same people decrying police violence and plenty of people swearing up and down that there must have been a reason for it but I don't see any people who claim to be more impartial writing about it.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:23:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Last night, I watched Hotel Rwanda (8+ / 0-)

    and the day before, I watched a really outstanding documentary on Liberia called "Pray the Devil Back to Hell." These films made me think a lot about the issue of militarized police forces and how these can literally rip apart the fabric of a society.

    I highly, highly recommend this documentary for anyone interested in the Peace Movement worldwide. It made me think about the things our society is doing in what I feel is a terrible spirit. We shouldn't be playing around with so much state-legitimized violence.

    A bit about the film for anyone interested:

    Pray the Devil Back to Hell chronicles the remarkable story of the courageous Liberian women who came together to end a bloody civil war and bring peace to their shattered country.

    Thousands of women — ordinary mothers, grandmothers, aunts and daughters, both Christian and Muslim — came together to pray for peace and then staged a silent protest outside of the Presidential Palace. Armed only with white T-shirts and the courage of their convictions, they demanded a resolution to the country’s civil war. Their actions were a critical element in bringing about a agreement during the stalled peace talks.

    A story of sacrifice, unity and transcendence, Pray the Devil Back to Hell honors the strength and perseverance of the women of Liberia. Inspiring, uplifting, and most of all motivating, it is a compelling testimony of how grassroots activism can alter the history of nations.

    Now, we are not Liberia. But we do have a real problem with how civil disobedience is important, how we need to keep our eyes open to greed and what it does, to keep our perspective about what even is violence, and to understand the basic power of joining together toward making change, particularly against militaristic regimes. A truly civil society has no need for such a thing, and besides, violence only breeds more violence.

    Tipped & rec'd.

    You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

    by mahakali overdrive on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:47:01 PM PDT

  •  Republished to Progressive Policy Zone. (8+ / 0-)

    Hope we can keep this on the rec list long enough for everyone here to read it...

    before the truth expressed in this diary is entirely drowned out on DKos.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:47:35 PM PDT

  •  Chris Hedges - win when cops are on our side (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, cordgrass, chipmo

    he saw this happen several places in the world

    he was in East Germany interviewing opposition leaders (he was a NY times reporter and won the Pulitzer prize) when the Berlin wall fell.

    the cops no longer followed the rulers

  •  recommended... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, AoT, PhilJD, chipmo

    in the blog posts of interest section of The Evening Blues

    great diary!

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:09:53 PM PDT

  •  Funny, I thought it was possible to both (11+ / 0-)

    oppose police brutality and at the same time oppose violence being directed against police.

    If people want to advocate violence against police, go right ahead.  I'm sure that will do loads to broaden the movement and spread the message of economic inequality.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:21:23 PM PDT

  •  The danger represented by devious false flags (0+ / 0-)

    A real danger is created where peaceful protesters are infiltrated by those that will make behind the scenes irrational statements,  promote violence,  and clandestinely promote irrationality for the purpose of turning off public support and encouraging harsh actions by police.  

    It has obviously happened with OWS and it will continue to happen, and it is highly difficult to prove, and it presents an absolute danger to peaceful protesters.  

    We're in an age of BS, fog and smoke where things are not as they seem.   Countries and peoples are being manipulated by proficient external and internal con men using such tactics.  

    There is a strong possibility that major terrorist events are carried out not by terrorists,  but by those who intend to twist and affect public opinion so we will go after those terrorists.   The acts will be claimed to be perpetrated by those that the media will say has a motive and grudge.     The reality is such acts were instead targeted by those most likely to benefit and not by those wishing peace and are 180 degrees out of phase.

    Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

    by dailykozzer on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:28:32 PM PDT

    •  The black bloc is not infiltrators (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, JesseCW

      by and large.  They are idealistic anarchists who truly think that their action will lead to a better world.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't rule out police dressing up as Black Bloc (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chipmo

        under cover in order to precipitate a harsh police response.  I'm not saying it's happening every time, but it's something to anticipate.  If they have on similar foot gear as the police or federal agents, you might want not to assume they're normal Black Bloc.  If they disappear or appear from behind police lines or vehicles, you might want to be skeptical of their intentions.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:58:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It probably does happen (0+ / 0-)

          but not to break windows.  Why would they need to do something that is already going to happen?

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:59:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A broken store window makes it easy to claim (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, chipmo

            "the protests turned violent" and justify a hideous police over-reaction against criminal & economic terrorists.  And average people watching the 6 o'clock news won't complain about the harsh reaction.  Perhaps we indeed could find a majority of undercover police don't throw bricks or stones through store windows, if the law enforcement agencies would allow such a survey to be made, and allow such results to be made public.

            Even if they aren't actively throwing the bricks, it doesn't mean they are not picking up rocks, acting out, yelling and threatening to throw them, and egging others to do the same, all in order to tease out the bad behavior which gives the police a justification for the harsh skull-cracking put-down they want to give.  I'd suggest being alert for this routine especially in front of active media cameras.  The old manipulative games of CO-INTEL from the 1950's through 1980's did make a big come-back and we do have PSY-OPS being used on our own citizens, collectively and in targeted groups.

            When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

            by antirove on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:18:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You might have a point but the press (0+ / 0-)

              makes that claim any time there is any violence.  The police don't need justification for beating people, they do it again and again with no provocation.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:53:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Are idealists better than greed mongers (0+ / 0-)

        of Wall St who believe only capital gains, carried interest and a fantasy of zero taxes for billionaires will lead to a better world,  for the few, while they fxxk the rest??

        We need political and ethnic balance as a democracy.    Greed and a culture of making more money at the expense of others is in the DNA and values of some.   As an example I have golfing "friends" who can't hold a 1 minute rational discussion unless they are talking about their new deals and ventures to make more money,  and they don't really need more money.  

        It typically revolves around how they claim to screw over the "leeches" on society,  with opportunistic businesses like tax preparation, or buying up properties to be turned in subsidized  housing.    These "konservatives" get rich off of taxpayer subsidies while they complain about Obama.    It is always about more opportunities for them and never about making a better world for most.  

        Yeah I know it is easy to say this feel good stuff but difficult to really live it.  Neither of the Party elites lives it,  but their well paid mouthpieces will advance it to gain power.   That's why I'm not a Party person or a partisan.    Rah Rah Parties were organized for power for the elite,  and not for an egalitarian society with opportunities.   Politicians do not want an egalitarian society.

        Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

        by dailykozzer on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:27:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, AoT, ladyjames, PhilJD

    Thank you for the diary and thank you for putting your body on the line for something you believe in. Major changes have occurred in this country as a result of non-violent protest. It keeps the issues active and stirs up conversation.

    I don't know the details of your health problems, but I had the best luck dealing with my chronic back and pain issues when I finally went to a Physiatrist. She got my meds worked out and I'm on a path to gaining a bit more control in my life. And I'm even able to garden a bit. I hope you'll be back gardening soon. Much love. Hang in there.

    •  when I can afford it, I'm headed to a physiatrist. (7+ / 0-)

      In a cruel twist of fate, my health insurance won't cover treatment because my injury was sustained in the police vehicle. So, my health insurance company claims it is an auto insurance issue. I don't have auto insurance, as i don't own a car. I am now stuck with bills for many doctor visits, meds, an MRI, etc. Have submitted those bills to the police. No response. Will likely have to sue them. Meanwhile, I am disabled and my ex lost his job last year and we're about to lose our home. I can't afford the care I need so that I can be more functional.

      Welcome to Amerika.

  •  Repubbed to Frustrati and Team DFH! (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, UnaSpenser, Wek, ladyjames, Funkygal, chipmo

    Thanks UnaSpenser.

    "I've seen the flame of hope among the hopeless/ And that was truly the biggest heartbreak of all" -- Bruce Cockburn

    by Cassiodorus on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:42:08 PM PDT

  •  Cops aren't going to wreck my mom's store. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Reggid, Quicklund, jiffypop

    Black block is. Next time work with the police to plan a decent protest.

  •  Were I not 1,000 miles away, I'd have told (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass

    the police to tone it down. But I also support non-violence. I'm going to paste a comment a I made on another blog below.

    Mohandas Gandhi worked to free the people of India from British Rule for many years. Given the title Mahatma (Great Soul) he wasn't just a spiritual leader. Trained as a lawyer in Great Britain, he became a shrewd politician. With the enormous population of India, he might have called for an armed uprising, but wisely chose the path of non-violence.

    Some Gandhi quotes:

       

    The cry for peace will be a cry in the wilderness, so long as the spirit of nonviolence does not dominate millions of men and women.

        "Hate the sin and not the sinner" is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world.

        We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.

        An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.

    Now me: I stand for social justice and non-violence.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:58:28 PM PDT

  •  I was all for OWS until (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, ctami, Reggid, crackerdog

    I had to drive through the protests here in Portland on my way home from work.  

    -Protestors blocked the street
    -Ran in and out of traffic
    -Threw trash at cars
    -Spit on cars
    -Shouted at "The Man", who I guess was people like me coming home from their "corporate" jobs.

    We need financial reform, no doubt.  I'm down with that.  But watching people destroy our downtown and parks and act like general assholes leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

    I'm sure there were a bunch of responsible social activists there.  But sadly they are drowned out by the archanists and assholes.

    GOD! Save me from your followers.

    by adversus on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:04:54 PM PDT

    •  Our local pro sports fans do the same thing (6+ / 0-)

      only they're not demonstrating for anything constructive, just a bunch of drunks cheering for overpaid, taxpayer subsidized corporate athletes.

      "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Edward R. Murrow

      by Betty Pinson on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When we took the streets after Prop 8 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chipmo, AoT, PhilJD, devis1

      there were people who were very, very pissed off that they couldn't simply drive through us.

      One absolutely hilarious scene involved a woman leaning out the window of her Bentley shouting "I voted for it, or against it, or whatever it was I was supposed to do, but I'd vote the other way now!  You've ruined my plans!!!".

      Those who say they really truly supported you passionately right up until the moment they were inconvenienced   generally shouldn't be taken too seriously.

      Your vote is your consent.

      by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:17:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But what purpose does the inconvenience serve? (0+ / 0-)

        If the only people being inconvenienced aren't those responsible for the problem, and if they're more likely not to view your cause with approval after having been made late somewhere and (in the case of the above commenter) having had things thrown at their vehicle, then why do it in the first place?

        Seems to me that the mindset behind "let's block traffic and snarl up the city, and then get huffy with the people who get mad about that!" is the same idea people objected to above with the "wake up!" comment—the notion that the only acceptable response to an action like that is to join it, and that those who aren't part of that particular action are somehow complicit, ignorant, or insufficiently committed.

        That approach isn't going to win the movement many friends.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:14:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You missed the point (0+ / 0-)

        It's not like I was just another minute behind schedule on my way home.

        I got yelled at.
        I got stuff thrown at my car.

        That's not an "inconvenience", that's rioting as far as I'm concerned.

        Also, it's not an "inconvenience" if it brings an entire metropolitan downtown to a near screeching halt.  Some of us have to go to WORK, where we try to make MONEY, and that means not being stuck in the middle of a protest traffic jam for two hours.

        GOD! Save me from your followers.

        by adversus on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:50:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now imagine that Banksters had gotten (0+ / 0-)

          in the way of you going to work and making money for several years.

          You might throw some shit.

          The club is all their law, to keep all men in awe That they no vision saw to maintain such a law

          by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:06:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If your "answer" is to throw some shit (0+ / 0-)

            I wouldn't hire you in the first place.  Throwing a temper-tantrum isn't going to help any cause.

            GOD! Save me from your followers.

            by adversus on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:12:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I see no indication here... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that the person to whom you're replying is a "bankster."

            And yet, stuff was thrown at his/her car.

            Even if we do grant, for the sake of argument, that the unemployed are justified in throwing things at banksters' cars, what exactly justifies throwing things at adversus's car?

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:50:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  People DO tell the cops not to be violent with (4+ / 0-)

    protesters.  All the time.  That's not an effective way to take on power.  Making sure our movements are organized, disciplined, and nonviolent, is.

  •  Fk this bllsht (0+ / 0-)

    I cannot imagine the reaction of the Daily Kos Scolds had this site existed when the Rodney King verdict was delivered and the LA Riots began.  

  •  Great diary, UnaSpenser (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you for putting yourself on the line for all of us. I am very sorry about your injury; sorry about people making excuses for a militarized police state since the drug war and 9/11 because they love a politician and politicians more than their fellow man or woman.

    I agree. Cowardly attacks on our first amendment rights, women, and minorities because Wall St now owns the police has no place in a civilized society and neither do those that enable such things.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers! - George Carlin - Thank you! I'm now going to Netroots Nation!

    by priceman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:24:12 PM PDT

  •  Baton Practice (10+ / 0-)

    While walking my dog yesterday, I saw about 40 of our local police force practicing with their billy clubs behind the police station. I guess they were on call if needed at the Nato summit downtown.

     There was kind of a party atmosphere about it; just a bunch of guys (didn't see any women although there may have been some) practicing how to beat the crap out of protesters.

    Creeped me out big time.  Some of the men were leaving by the time I turned the corner and were walking toward me carrying their clubs.  My brain knew I was not in danger, but it felt scary.

    Protesters are brave.

  •  I wrote the local police union... (9+ / 0-)

    Told them how I advocated for them back when Bloomberg screwed them over in their last contract disputes. Now the violence of the NYPD makes me hesitant to stand by them again. I conveyed this to the local police union. Never heard back.

    Sadly the mind set of many police forces exclude them listening to the civilians who normally support them. I have always been pro cop because it is a tough and dangerous job and some 90% of them do their damned best. But at times like this it is hard to maintain that support. And honestly it will hurt the NYPD next time they get screwed in contract disputes because I honestly won't be able to stand by them again as long as they are like this. I respect them and the job they do most of the time, but they have positioned themselves against the 99% and alongside the very people who screwed them over. That reduces my respect fo them.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:52:59 PM PDT

  •  Great diary, thanks (5+ / 0-)

    The naysayers are going to accuse OWS of causing problems as they have all along.

    It's the only way they can avoid answering questions and facing the real issues the protestors are bringing to the public's attention.

    "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Edward R. Murrow

    by Betty Pinson on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:57:52 PM PDT

  •  But, but , but (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, PhilJD, Brown Thrasher, AoT, chipmo

    Oakland cops love pooties abandoned by those meanie protesters.

    This was a real article in the Washington Post liberal newspaper conspiracy.

    Well, I been around the world, and I've been in the Washington Zoo. And in all my travels, as the facts unravel, I've found this to be true.... ...they don't give a f^ck about anybody else

    by Zwoof on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:01:37 PM PDT

  •  Oh, yay! MORE whining from the ideologically pure (2+ / 4-)

    Yeah, geez, you must be right -- those of us who do not chant "f-- the police," who do not get in their faces, scream at them, insult them, throw things at them, try to shove though them -- in general, try to fight with them -- must not be good liberals and Democrats, right?  Is that about it for this diary?  What a load of nonsense.   The CPD was great -- EVERY single cop I talked to and saw was being incredibly friendly.  The ONLY times the cops reacted was when the usual handful of self-righteous, mindless idiots purposely tried to confront, provoke, and shove the cops.  

    So, please, climb off your pulpit and spare us your self-righteous indignity, because the only thing obvious to the whole world about the CPD was that they showed professionalism in the face of a dedicated group of idiots who weren't in town to protest, but were only interested in fighting the cops.  Call me a bad liberal if you want -- I really don't care -- but the ridiculous, confrontational group of idiots who went roving around town looking to fight with the cops did nothing but ruin every event and undermine the cause.

    Sorry if that reality is not ideologically pure enough for you.

    •  are you willfully ignoring my point? (10+ / 0-)

      My point is to stop judging people.

      My point is that we don't declare the police or our president as having "lost all credibility" when they do completely atrocious acts of violence, even though they are the ones with all the power in the world. But, we're going to use some purity standard for a movement which involved 100s of thousands of people and has just a few behaving in ways you don't agree with?

      I don't judge people for campaigning for a president who orders assassinations and detentions and erodes our civil rights. I try to understand how we're all wending our way through an impossible quandary.

      So, don't judge a few people, who when trying to push back against a very entrenched and militarized system, might get a little worked up from time to time. And, certainly, don't claim that an entire movement is delegitimized by it.

      •  Well, let's see -- you concluded, in part . . . (3+ / 2-)

        . . . that any of us who were defending the job the CPD did, and who were criticizing the small number of mindless idiots who were looking to start a fight, by saying:

        Why? Because, ultimately, you support violence. You support it every day when you defend the police, vote for just about anyone running for office these days, and buy products from companies which profit through the exploitation of others. To support capitalism - where profit, which means exploitation, is the revered principle of life - is to support harm, violence. You support violence if it means keeping what goes on around the world away from your doorstep.
        Is THAT what you consider to be "non-judgmental"?
    •  Don't be a d*ick. (4+ / 0-)

      Nothing to do with your ideology, just your conduct.  

      "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

      by LucyandByron on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:37:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Conduct? You mean like throwing things at cops? (3+ / 3-)

        So screaming insults at cops just standing there, throwing things at them, and trying to provoke a fight are just okey-dokey in your book, but calling out this kind of idiocy is "being a dick."  Uh, yeah, whatever.

        •  You need to quit living in your happy little (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chipmo, Broke And Unemployed

          unicorn land where the police don't attack people unprovoked.  For you to sit here and lecture Una, someone who was permanently injured by the police for being non-violent, about how fucking grand the police are is disgusting.  Someone in Chicago throws a plastic bottle at the police and it justifies beating people up across the country.  If that's true then September 11th was justified as well.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:28:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where did the poster state that unjustified (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Unit Zero

            police violence never occurs?

            Where did the poster state that a hurled bottle in Chicago justified police violence everywhere?

            Better plant both feet on the ground of reality before taking those kind of swings.

            •  Where did he even mention police violence? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Broke And Unemployed

              It was completely ignored, completely, missing the whole point of the diary.  If you want to condemn violence then do so, don't just condemn a few minor instances on the part of protesters.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:45:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I have never done these things... (3+ / 0-)

          I supported the cops here in NYC when mayor Bloomberg screwed them over in contract disputes. I supported several cops who ran for office as Dems here in NYC. I have always been pro-cop and have never thrown anything at them or provoked a fight. In fact back when the Republican Convention came to NYC to exploit 9/11 I joined the protests but took great effort to establish friendly relations with the cops.

          So I don't fit your stereotype. And yet I am disgusted by the behavior of the cops towards protesters these days. The NYPD has been horrible towards protesters and it makes me unwilling to go to bat for them next time they are screwed by the mayor.

          Perhaps this gentleman expresses my current outrage against cops I once supported better than I can:

          FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

          by mole333 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:21:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  uprated for HR abuse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unit Zero
    •  Bullshit (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, chipmo, Broke And Unemployed

      I saw the video with the cops wailing on civilians with batons, even on the ground. There is no excuse for that, except if someones life is in danger. It was a police riot.

      Bullshit.

      This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson

      by Karl Rover on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:28:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  uprated (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unit Zero, vcmvo2, emelyn

      Disagree with the poster if you want, but they should be able to describe what they saw without being hiderated.

      I wasn't there in Chicago.

      But when I have gone to protests, (and there have been plenty this last year in Wisconsin), I cringed when I see black bandana covered faces, because I worry about the juvenile mindset that often accompanies this outfit.

      Give me a bunch of teachers, nurses, and cops to protest alongside anyday.

  •  Well said Una (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, tardis10, shaharazade, chipmo

    The dynamic between police departments and the OWS movement reminds me more of what I have seen in Latin America in the 70s than in the UK for example.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:04:59 PM PDT

  •  I hope (0+ / 0-)

    everyone feels better now...

  •  I do. But don't hit cops with sticks (6+ / 0-)

    and expect anything but a violent response.

    Let's face it. When it comes to violence, America is number 1.

    Protesters aren't going to win by hitting cops with sticks.

    We need to be smarter than that.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:24:03 PM PDT

    •  sometimes, in the heat of the moment and over (8+ / 0-)

      time of being exposed to all the violence, people will not have clear heads about this. We must forgive them - if we don't approve - and not condemn a movement over that.

      I won't judge people for continuing to vote for war mongers, so don't judge protesters for getting carried away in the midst of some very intensely frightening experiences.

    •  Disappointed by this comment. (6+ / 0-)

      I truly believe many have forgotten what the relationship of the government is to citizen in this Country.

      And that the First Amendment is, well, the First Amendment.

      "A Republic, if you can keep it."

      by Publius2008 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:54:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't *not* hit cops with sticks and expect (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, dotdot, chipmo, AoT, UnaSpenser

      anything other than a violent response.

      Once you stop allowing the state to render your actions meaningless and non-threatening, you will be met with force and violence.

      Protest is allowed to the extent that it is a meaningless release valve for building pressure.  The moment is ceases to be that and becomes something more, the clubs start falling.

      It's not new.  It's not something we ought to keep having to learn over and over again.

      The only way to avoid police brutality is to follow the permit to a T, stay on the assigned route, and disperse when told to do so.    Following those rules has never brought about any substantial change.

      If your dad is kicking your brother in the face with a steel toed boot, it's not because your brother shot a spitball at him.  It's because your father is a violent asshole.

      If you're spending your time talking about how your brother never should have made your father angry, you're enabling your father and endangering your family.

      Your vote is your consent.

      by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:25:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  First off, you're totally (5+ / 0-)

    correct that there is NO WAY that the discretion of deciding what is free speech or assembly should be left to a cop.  More or less pertinently, depending how you see it, there is NO WAY that cops should have the right to show or use the level of force deployed on anyone simply exercising a right of free speech.

    There was simply no reason for the force present or used at any of the marches or rallies.  The whole fulcrum through which many view and analyze this issue--convenience and aesthetics--itself needs to be reexamined.  Are first amendment rights fundamental and sacred or are they not?

    "A Republic, if you can keep it."

    by Publius2008 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Thank G-d you wrote this. I weep for us. (4+ / 0-)

    This purity campaign is just a right-wing ploy.  We are being played by trolls.

    People, not corporations. Democracy, not totalitarian capitalism.

    by democracy is coming on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:49:02 PM PDT

    •  when non-violence is that standard by which (7+ / 0-)

      we hold ourselves, our elected officials and those employed by our government, then by all means, get a little nitpicky with some protesters. Until then, save it.

      If we're voting for a man who deploys drones to assassinate people, who detains people indefinitely, who allows people to be tortured in our jails, who lets corporate insurance companies dictate how we provide health care, while 100 of the die per day because they can't afford said corporate insurance - then, by gawd we can be a little forgiving of a small bit of behavior we don't approve of from some lowly protesters.

      •  why are you conflating this two? (0+ / 0-)

        you've made a legitimate point, but is this real thesis behind the diary?  

        Obama is to blame for the violent suppression of free speech, particularly that against his policies?  Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

        People, not corporations. Democracy, not totalitarian capitalism.

        by democracy is coming on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:20:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one said that at all (0+ / 0-)

          The point is that if you are going to denounce violence then you need to denounce violence and not just denounce a movement or a few people who have broken some windows.  Where are the denouncements of the US government as illegitimate for it's violence in the middle east?  Or even the police as illegitimate for their constant violence against people here at home.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:58:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  {{{Una}}} Thank you for writing this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, chipmo

    OWS has done big things already, and one of the biggest (IMO) is pointing out how institutionalized we have all become. Are you old enough to remember the old people in the 70's? They were much more independent than what I see now.

    The easiest way to enslave a populace is to gradually make them believe the limits are for their own good. I think it will take clear strong voices like yours to break through the denial, and it clearly isn't going to happen as quickly as our broken hearts would like.  

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:25:53 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, Una (8+ / 0-)

    Through this blog I witnessed you transition from a long distance witness to the Arab Spring to a citizen activist and journalist with Occupy Boston. You have experienced it first hand, suffering for it, walking the walk, and you have my great respect for that and for speaking out on behalf of those still out there in the streets. I truly appreciate it. I can't answer your question here with the honesty I would like without getting in trouble with some for my opinions. Suffice it to say, I think you know the answer to your question anyway.

    Take care of yourself.

    'Cause the fire in the street, Ain't like the fire in the heart/ And in the eyes of all these people, Don't you know that this could start, On any street in any town ~ FZ

    by cosmic debris on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:44:26 PM PDT

  •  Thank you UnaSpenser !! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, AoT, shaharazade, JesseCW, chipmo

    The top Rec'd Diary on Daily Kos today, using pictures and videos from the Chicago Tribune, praising the Chicago Police Department and how they kept their cool with those "violent protesters" made me sick. Yes, there are always some violent protesters at the NATO Summit, but to focus on the violence of a few, rather than the nonviolence of thousands, made me very angry. Thank you for this elequent response.

  •  You posit a straw man in your first paragraph. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Quicklund, angry marmot, crackerdog

    The rest of your diary just flows from that.
    Keep in mind that "we the people" are the government.
    In spite of the Bush years, citizens united, the roberts court, etc. that is still our birthright as citizens.

    So, yes, we must demand that the police cease and desist from the violence.

    However, as a "movement", "we" are responsible for what is happening on our side of the line. Not what happens on the other.
    A few of your sentences, such as the one referencing "balsa wood sticks", I'd agree with. I don't think there's been much real violence coming from our side.
    However, the problem with "balsa wood stick breaking" is that it's a "slippery slope" on which a few people are losing their self-discipline and putting the whole movement and other individuals in the protest at risk.
    If they're going to "resist" police authority, they should be doing so as an organized group, acting in concert.
    You're just encouraging a chaotic situation into which agents provocateur can more easily insert themselves and create more problems for the movement.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:28:14 PM PDT

    •  I strongly disagree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, JesseCW

      Because we aren't just the movement. As you say we are also citizens who are responsible for self governance. We don't get to pretend it is us against them. We are the ones who need to say that the violence against protesting citizens is wrong.

      Poverty = politics.

      by Renee on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:52:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree completely. However, the assertion of the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Renee, angry marmot, cordgrass

        diary is that everyone who is advocating for "our side" to keep their cool and maintain discipline are in favor of the violence coming from the cops.
        Many of us are afraid of any opportunity for inciters of violence to start bringing down and breaking up the movement.
        Some of us were around in the sixties.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:01:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't get that. I just got that she was saying (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, JesseCW, chipmo

          hyper-focusing on the few incidents of violence coming from our side without condemning the violence from the other side is a mistake.

          I do understand the fear that inciters will give the establishment the ability to demonize us. But I really think they are probably doing that anyway. And at some point you have to say stop mouthing the opposition's position! They are doing it quite well, themselves.

          Poverty = politics.

          by Renee on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:07:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The protesters in Chicago in 1968 were much (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Renee

            more rowdy and "give and take" than the current crop.
            The Vietnam War ended in 1975.

            I think OWS (nationwide) has great potential. I think that people in the movement have to think beyond the street and figure out how to leverage their exposure in the media, which is the real battleground.

            If it simply settles back into the unfocused frenzy of the protests of the 90's and 00's, it won't be doing that.

            OWS was on the back bench until a cop peppersprayed peaceful protesters in NY.
            Then it was able to take over the news cycle and then drive the narrative about income inequality, etc.  and drive the discussion of "austerity" off the front page.

            Anybody who thinks the 1% is afraid that the masses are goiing to spill out into the streets is crazy. They're afraid, but what they're afraid of is that they won't be able to control the news cycle and "drive the narrative".

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:11:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're entirely in control of the news cycle. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chipmo

              80% of the media we consume comes from 6 massive corporations.

              To get positive coverage in the Mass Media, you have to refrain from threatening that hegemony.

              Your vote is your consent.

              by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:27:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OWS was able to break through and get good press (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                angry marmot, cordgrass

                because of the irrational attacks on peaceful protesters.
                There was a lot of sympathy.
                That won't be sustained if it becomes a "rioters, vandals, etc. " sort of narrative.
                Also, everyone who isn't a vandal will stay home. The movement will die.

                You can't make this stuff up.

                by David54 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:26:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some kids in one university got good press (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  for about 5 minutes.

                  Then the crackdowns started and the camps were overrun, and no further good press followed.

                  That's because the movement became large enough to be seen as a threat to GE and Disney and NewsCorp.  If the movement succeeds, the Media Trusts get broken up.

                  Corporations fighting for their lives do not seek to empower those who would end them.

                  Also, everyone who isn't a vandal will stay home. The movement will die.
                  Just like in Egypt, right?

                  The people who let their opinions be rule by prattling twits on telivision never have and never will be found in the streets risking baton blows.

                  The club is all their law, to keep all men in awe That they no vision saw to maintain such a law

                  by JesseCW on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  A cop was stabbed in Chicago (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure the balsa wood reference sums up the actions of the Black Bloc properly.  And I'm also not going to hold it against the authorities in Chicago for looking at other events like this in recent history and ramping up the force.  

      That said, I really like your comment about us only being responsible for what 'we' do.  I realize 99.9% of the protestors were there for good causes and to get a legit message out but the Black Bloc tactics well after all of the peaceful protestors left on Sunday were met with appropriate force, IMO.  And that doesn't make me some closet Repug, it makes me an unbiased person capable of being honest about what I saw unfold.

  •  You know what bothers me? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, dotdot, cordgrass

    Hearing "thank you for your service" when right-wingers (who I may be arguing with) find out that I used to be a law enforcement officer - even though they have no clue about what I did.

    It reeks of authority worship.

    You know what bothers me more?

    The ridiculous broad-brushing of those of us who have worn Kevlar, carried pepper spray, and worn firearms as nothing more than jackbooted thugs.

    I thought progressives were supposed to be the logical, thoughtful ones.

  •  This: (4+ / 0-)

    may be the best essay ever published here.

  •  Only the 1% can afford balsa wood sticks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass

    That shit is expensive. So let's not BS ourselves. Don't hit cops with sticks.

    Is it that hard to understand?

  •  Pardon my language Una but... (5+ / 0-)

    Fuckin' A. Thank you. I guess its alright for some folks if the cops give protestors a beat down if the mayor is a Democrat.

    For too many people on DK politics is more Yankees/Red Sox than it is about issues.

  •  I can attest to a long tradition (0+ / 0-)

    of authoritarianism on this blog. One of the reasons I don't participate in the conversation much anymore.

  •  Oh, awesome. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass, crackerdog

    A diary that claims that if you vote or support capitalism, then you support police brutality. This is a really productive diary.

    •  That's not what it says at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Broke And Unemployed, UnaSpenser

      It says that if you are going to oppose violence then you need to oppose violence, not just oppose the breaking of a few windows.  And if you are going to claim that some broken windows delegitimize a movement then how illegitimate is our violent government?

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:40:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I really think people are afraid of changes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipmo, joe wobblie, AoT

    coming and being asked to change. They ignore the Koch's determined push to suck up every penny from us in every way possible. And they ignore the army of locusts (lobbyists) that swarm Washington by the thousands pushing our legislators to do what THEY want. Indeed our congresscritters are finding themselves to be powerless where once they wielded lofty power.

    We are being asked to make sacrifices and they call it "shared sacrifice". But it isn't shared by the .001 percent. Instead our sacrifices will go to their coffers.

    Occupy asks us to think outside the box. And there is tremendous energy and effort involved in these protests. They ask people to stand up, to lead themselves where for years people have only learned how to follow.  For some, this is an impossibility. They ask that their fellow Americans think about the ills of the current system. We have people who can read but cannot comprehend and we have people who cannot read. So the vast majority of folks find Occupy a turn off.

    At the same time our electoral chances of changing things to our betterment become slimmer and slimmer. For years we have had only the lesser of two evils to vote for. We cannot compete with a bunch of hedge fund managers, Koch brothers and other m/billionaires with our little bits. We cannot compete with armies of lobbyists. At least not on their terms.

    So I challenge you (and me too). Change IS coming. It doesn't matter much whose side you pick. We get austerity so that the .001 gets more and that will come regardless. Sacrifices will be required from us. Occupy just says let us sacrifice for the world we want.

    The repubs have a great chance of taking it all with their avalanche of money. The Ryan budget shows where they will take us: More military spending, huge cuts in every social network program, evisceration of health care, attacks against women's rights, voters rights, civil rights of all kinds.  Ryan is a Koch Brother's wet dream. Already all the spending is shaping the recall in Wisconsin. This is our future on Koch.

    And for you who believe all that crap from the rethugs or the blue dogs that it is about the debt, forgetaboutit. These folks will turn our current deficit into a bite sized brownie. The debt they will run up will be staggering. Just think about the huge debt the Bush cuts have created, never mind the frickin' wars. And don't believe for one moment that the corporations if they are people give a sh@t about America. They are true stateless creatures. They care only about themselves.

    We will be peons with no education, no hopes, no future at all in the repub scenario. Our children will die of malnutrition, lack of health care and will absolutely be worse off than we have it now.

    To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. -Joseph Chilton Pearce

    by glitterscale on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:05:29 AM PDT

  •  What showed up the iconic pepper sprayer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass

    at UC Davis was a row of unresisting students holding their ground. The world could clearly see the brutality of his act as contrasted with peaceful resistance.

    I don't worship authority. Years of experience leave me questioning it. I want the Occupy movement to bring about a transformation of our society and push back the neo-feudalism which seems to be growing worse by the day.

    Of course we should tell the police to be non-violent. But clever PR can manipulate perception of events unless we can make it unmistakably clear that it is the police, not demonstrators, who are perpetrating violence in the streets.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:33:17 AM PDT

  •  No. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jiffypop, cordgrass, emptythreatsfarm

    There are too many simplistic reductions into "us" and "them", "with us or against us" here; enough strawmen to have a virtual Burning Man.

    The "battle" is going to be fought not on the protest-lines but in the media where (like it or not) image is everything. Small acts of idiocy among the protesters weaken the moral authority of, and consequent public (the actual 99%) sympathy for, the broader aims of the movement. Lose the visual culture of non-violence, and it's over.

    Obviously, we should also appeal to law-enforcement to act / respond proportionately. But winning the media campaign for the sympathy (and votes) of the 99%--the "squishy middle"--requires that law-enforcement maintain their monopoly on violence.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:12:26 AM PDT

    •  If the media is the battleground then (0+ / 0-)

      we will lose, every time.  Every single time.  The media will only portray us sympathetically for tiny moments and will demonize us the rest of the time.  That's how the media works.  Blaming activists for that is absurd.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:53:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lawns and traffic are important (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass

    You as a person have property rights.  Not sure if you live in a city or the burbs but if you take care of your property - how would you feel about allowing others to march all over it - potentially trashing it in the process (regardless of if it's intentional or not)and you have to ber the burden of cost and labor to repair?

    What if you or your child or parents wee in need of an ambulence but it couldn't get through becasue of a NATO protest and the person died?

    A sucessful, respectful protest does not damage personal property or put lives of others in danger - there are reasons that some cities issue assembly permits - it's to protect the rights of ALL people.

    I have no problem with protests or the cause but these things must be done within certain rules - if not, you get Cops beating people.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:47:15 AM PDT

  •  This might cheer you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damnit Janet, UnaSpenser, devis1
    Scott Olsen ‏@OlsenVet
    http://www.dailykos.com/... Excellent take on violence in protests today. #OPD #CPD #PoliceBrutality hurts more than #BlackBloc ever will #OO #OChi
  •  Superb diary (0+ / 0-)

    I think this diary should be read by everyone.  

    As for

    Don't vote for anyone who has ever supported funds for war. Don't vote for anyone who believes in drone strikes. Don't vote for anyone who accepts campaign donations from any business in the industrial military complex. Or the chemical industry. Or the insurance industry. Or any industry which harms people or the planet.
    I'm pretty sure I could still vote for Dennis Kucinich - if he were on the ballot.   And there are probably 20 to 25 people in Congress who would still warrant a vote, but that's about it.  However, as usual in this manipulated election process, your only option is to choose who is the lesser evil.  So, yes, I'll vote for, for example, Obama, and I recognize that that makes me guilty of violence - but less so than were I to not vote for him.

    And that is a big part of why, IMO, OWS is so important.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

  •  this is a beautiful diary (0+ / 0-)

    i am sad that it's needed.

    One great big festering neon distraction, I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

    by Orman West on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:38:18 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for the diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    I had the same reaction yesterday.  The blind hypocrisy it takes to denounce the legitimacy of the entire OWS movement because of the actions of a handful of people while allowing that the police force has a "few bad apples" is unnerving enough.

    It becomes truly insane when one recognizes that OWS is a NON HIERARCHICAL structure that has no true means of controlling the actions of its members but is being required to keep its members in line to a FAR greater degree than the CHAIN OF COMMAND driven police forces if it hopes to keep the support of a certain segment of this community.

    Of course, OWS is declared illegitimate for not fixing in 9 months what electoral politics hasn't been able to keep from GETTING WORSE in the past 3 years.  Reality based my ass.

    The bourgeoisie had better watch out for me, all throughout this so called nation. We don't want your filthy money, we don't need your innocent bloodshed, we just want to end your world. ~H.R.

    by chipmo on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:41:06 AM PDT

  •  Thank you (((Unaspenser)))) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, AoT

    Hotlisting this as I need to read it every day.  

    I have a couple of my own personal trolls when it comes to police brutality, Occupy and protesting.  I am so grateful to you for writing this and I am so overwhelmingly sorry that you been injured.  

    I will resist.  I will not be complicit in my own enslavement.  

    Our peace signs are conidered weapons, our voices as treason, our protests are now treated as terrorism.  

    People will wake up when it's their child shot for being "different".  People will wake up when it's themselves dragged from a car and beaten till both legs are broken because the "police" didn't feel they hand their ID over quickly enough.  People will wake up when it's their house ransacked without a warrant.  By then it's already too late.  I fear it's too late already.  

    The fact that our Police State is being excused or justified by some on a progressive blog is very telling.  I think people are scared of seeing what is actually happening.   Possibly feel powerless and want to side with power.   Like how the regular kids never confronted bullies.  I see those who still have any tolerance for the injustices of the PD as being the scared kids in school who sided with bullies so they themselves wouldn't be bullied.  Or more to the point, they are like the pro-rapists types who think only only bad things happen to bad women.

    Power to the people - not to the tools of the 1%.  

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

    by Damnit Janet on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:41:37 AM PDT

    •  Damnit Janet--along with this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, Damnit Janet

      outstanding diary--best comment ever!

      Both tell sad truths about this country----about Americans----and about the America that never was.

      We not only believe in-----we actually live in----- a country that never truly existed.

      We live in a country we thought existed.

      "Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you." Bishop Peter Storey---Central Methodist Mission, Johannesburg, June 1981

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:12:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a little something else- (0+ / 0-)

    "Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you." Bishop Peter Storey---Central Methodist Mission, Johannesburg, June 1981

    by lyvwyr101 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:51:04 PM PDT

dstein, felix19, Renee, itsbenj, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, artr2, Shockwave, cotterperson, xynz, Rachael7, Abou Ben Adhem, Foreign Devil, hubcap, Creosote, opinionated, TheMomCat, bronte17, whenwego, Agathena, stevej, cosmic debris, ovals49, sngmama, antirove, tidalwave1, hangingchad, TiaRachel, Damnit Janet, JimWilson, On The Bus, Binas Non Sunt, The Walrus, dkmich, Oaktown Girl, econlibVA, zerelda, ybruti, MrFrost, Kitsap River, ScienceMom, Emmy, vacantlook, bibble, oortdust, RanDomino, kbman, Bluesee, tle, m16eib, wsexson, Tonedevil, Simplify, chidmf, farmerchuck, Burned, lotlizard, LucyandByron, WisePiper, Ginny in CO, Lindy, reddbierd, martini, LeftOverAmerica, esquimaux, ActivistGuy, AoT, The Wizard, Wednesday Bizzare, luckydog, blueoasis, triv33, twigg, joe shikspack, NearlyNormal, ZombyWoof, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, democracy is coming, CA Nana, Cassiodorus, means are the ends, zedaker, shaharazade, Boadicaea, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, bluicebank, khereva, Loudoun County Dem, SpecialKinFlag, toosinbeymen, ninkasi23, devis1, Liberaltarian, david mizner, Aunt Martha, jhop7, CT Hank, Don midwest, cville townie, GANJA, TruthFreedomKindness, Justus, Shahryar, poligirl, dadadata, elwior, Wek, alnep, temptxan, petulans, aigeanta, Karl Rover, priceman, DavidW, protectspice, greenpunx, David Futurama, papicek, lancecote, enemy of the people, number nine dream, Rick Aucoin, greengemini, Scott Wooledge, Donkey Hotey, Dopeman, h bridges, CamillesDad1, JesseCW, zaka1, JustJennifer, TPau, GWinkler, mahakali overdrive, deviant24x, jpmassar, Broke And Unemployed, Johnnythebandit, SmartAleq, pdxwoman, TimmyB, gulfgal98, NY brit expat, shenderson, Lady Libertine, Funkygal, Publius2008, Betty Pinson, DrTerwilliker, Anne was here, nosleep4u, dwayne, allenjo, slowbutsure, GammaRae, david graeber, Wolf10, marigold, tardis10, Keori, PhilJD, Crazy Moderate, Orman West, justme2122, OldDragon, greenbastard, efraker, a2nite, Ginger1, congenitalefty, Horace Boothroyd III, chipmo, pot, radical simplicity, Rizzo, Brown Thrasher, Earth Bear, AZ Sphinx Moth, Quasimodal, Dumas EagerSeton, Prospect Park, Shawn Russell, sebsgf, Panacea Paola, M E C, JayRaye, Sean X, Markoff Chaney, Yo Bubba, Mr Jones, Jollie Ollie Orange, tngirl

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site