Critical thinking is extremely difficult and scary for a lot of people.

@1: Are you referring to Goldy's post? I hope so.

I love you, Goldy.

@2: Everything that Goldy says is correct. It would seem that my post refers to you!

If I piss on your leg I will get your undivided attention for sure. Hooray for me. But I may not get your support. Do you know why there hasn't been media coverage about OS occupying the Goldman Sachs offices on 2nd Ave, or Dave Reichert's office? Cuz' they haven't fucking done that. Pardon my stupidity for thinking they should inconvenience the parties who are causing the problems, when the benefits of alienating middle-class voters are so obvious.

@5 if you have a good idea -- then get some friends and go occupy the Goldman Sachs offices or Dave Reichert's office. If it's a great idea, and will get a lot of sympathy for your cause, then I'm sure you'll find it easy to persuade other people to join you. Or maybe there's some reason it won't work, and the Occupiers could let you know, if you went down to a GA and talked to them.

Pretty much the same thing happened mid-July when some 400 members of AFTRA joined about an equal number of UNITE/HERE Local 8 and other King County labor unions to block off 5th Avenue in protest against the Seattle Westin Hotel's failure to come to terms with Local 8. The general media coverage was minimal, and the rally probably only got as much coverage as it did because AFTRA happens to be the union that represents television news reporters.

Not all attention is good attention. Most people learn that as kids when their tantrums are ignored and not reward.

There are ways to do civil disobedience that strike more at the people doing wrong.

Just look at how the tea baggers antics have destroyed their support.

@5 and yet, if this was a Husky Game at Husky Stadium, all the coverage of the traffic impact and bridge would have been ... positive.

Interesting. Would you like cheezburger with your whine?

Right on!

Here's what Goldy and others don't get about civil disobedience - it doesn't work if the mass of people don't sympathize with those committing it.

It worked in the Civil Rights era for two reasons. One, the demonstrators did absolutely nothing to fight back. Screaming at a cop is fighting back. Two, nothing they did truly inconvenienced anyone. Sitting at the front of the bus didn't mean that there were no seats left; boycotting the bus didn't block traffic; sitting quietly at a lunch counter while boisterous rednecks physically assaulted them made them sympathetic; as did standing in a park while the dogs and hoses were turned on them.

Maybe in show business "there is no such thing as bad publicity," but not in politics.

Yes. As if massive income inequality and class warfare perpetrated by the very rich and their politician lapdogs wasn't actually "inconvenient" to all of use here.

Although it is easier to be annoyed by the thing in front of you, that it is to resist the water becoming incrementally hotter.

@11, is right. If you are going to protest you can't do ANYTHING that can be used against you. You have to present yourselves and the perfectly well behaved protesters who are being vilified by the police etc. You have to make sure the establishment is the only side that can have any blame placed on it's head. And that is something Occupy hasn't seemed to grasp from the Civil Right Movment.

I guess this isn't a big deal: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/…

Really. Does anyone really think last night's adventure in misguided idealism was necessary to create media coverage, as Goldy implies? The Occupy movement has been doing just fine on that score, have they not?

The main issue people have had with them--and continue to have--is that they have an incoherent message. Personally, I don't think it's been incoherent at all...it's been very clear for some time now, and I think it was really starting to penetrate, that it's about wealth disparity. The 99% thing (though it really should be the 99.9% thing) has legs.

I just want this thing to work. And so far, targeting the rich and their institutions while driving home that 99% messaging has worked. But now you're talking about broad civil disobedience that indiscriminately impacts everybody...that has NOT been the strategy to this point. It muddies the 99% messaging, since blocking a bridge, as opposed to, say, occupying a bank, so obviously negatively affects the very same 99%.

Goldy apparently thinks it doesn't matter who the Occupy protests piss off as long as they get attention. Any press is good press. I think they got a lot of the wrong kind of attention last night and very possibly compromised what should be Occupy's central message.

You're all free to disagree.

Getting press isn't the only key to making change.Getting support is.Numbers is the end game in activism and this doesn't get people on your side.You can direct civil disobedience at a target and get just as much press and gain support.Or you can stop everyone from getting home to dinner with their kids which doesn't inconvenience any of the people your up against but does convince the people unaware or on the fence that you don't give a shit about them.Therefor they don't give a shit about your message

@11 "Here's what Goldy and others don't get about civil disobedience - it doesn't work if the mass of people don't sympathize with those committing it."

Patently false. Read your Thoreau as I suspect you have not.

@11 "Two, nothing they did truly inconvenienced anyone."

Also patently false. Bus service was bankrupt without their patronage. Large assemblies always cause this "inconvenience" thing you are worried about. People were "inconvenienced" by this violence going on around them. The apple cart was truly upset.

Read your Thurgood Marshall as I suspect you have not.

Something else about civil disobedience... The only laws the Civil Rights protesters were breaking were unjust laws - Jim Crow laws. They weren't breaking laws that keep traffic safe and orderly, or laws that keep public spaces sanitary.

@11...

Uhhh...the Civil Rights Movement was completely unpopular when it began and participants were jailed, beaten and killed.

The protest against the war in Vietnam were extremely unpopular when it began and participants were jailed, beaten and killed.

This movement may be quite unpopular until the message gets traction with the general populace, which may just take a while given that the power structure that owns and controls the mass media do not want the message of the 99% to go anywhere.

So the movement will soldier on. Get over it.

@ 17, I won't have time to do that and get back to you. That would take hours and this thread will be stale by then. Since you seem to know your Thoreau, why don't you break it down for me?

Also, the bus bankruptcy was caused by the bus company themselves, because they refused to back down for a year. Self-inflicted inconvenience isn't the same thing.

@ 19, tell me when the Civil Rights movement did something to antagonize the people they were trying to win over. Also, tell me when the anti-war movement - as opposed to anti-war sentiment among all Americans - became popular.

@18: "They weren't breaking laws that keep traffic safe and orderly, or laws that keep public spaces sanitary."

According to who? According to the largely antagonistic mass of white folks in the south (and elsewhere) at the time they sure as shit were. Hell, even the act of sitting at a lunch counter or enrolling in school was viewed as a major threat to public order.

@17 But that inconvenience was targeted, as much as possible, toward the people doing wrong. It wasn't just fucking up regular people's day.

Go occupy every home that is up for foreclosure. Refuse to leave and make the banks haul you out. Slow that process to a crawl. Or pull a Wisconsin down in Olympia.

@ 22, this isn't about what those diametrically opposed to OWS or Civil Rights believed; this is about what those in the middle believe. In the case of Civil Rights, that was mostly white middle class people all across the country. Most of them had to be shaken out of their viewpoint of "how things are," but most weren't suddenly made to wait for an hour while, say, one of only six bridges across a crosstown canal were blocked by protestors during rush hour.

@22, no, he has a point. Civil rights marchers would never have blocked a bridge.

File:Bloody_Sunday-officers_await_demonstrators.jpeg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloody…

@22 So in this case the equivalent of the southern racists are people trying to get to and fro across a bridge? Is the end goal the same? Do you want them to give up their petty interests in jobs, family, or going to the doctor?

The Civil Rights movement worked because the anger and violence directed at a black guy having some lunch made the racists rightly look very bad. This is not at all like that.

As someone who studied Thoreau extensively in college. Particularly his influence on people like Ghandi and MLK I understand the concept of civil disobedience very well.

As a logical, and thinking human I am continually perplexed by the Occupy movement because the kind of civil disobedience (CD from here forward) being displayed is CD for the sake of CD. There is no specific target, no concern for relevance or effectiveness, just waving around and randomly firing a shotgun in the hopes of hitting a target that, for the protesters, is not yet defined.

Also, to bring into comparison civil disobedience as a relevant explanation for what Occupy is doing is absurd. They may be disobedient, but there is no purpose, just a bunch of screaming and "occupying" places like SCCC which is a public institution funded by taxes and tuition paid by people who are a part of the 99 percent. Oh, and dont even get me started on the libraries at various occupy protests. Wow, a library, how disobedient. Library = "who gives a fuck, at least they aren't burning anything down".

Here is an idea: orchestrate an afternoon where the most popular branch of every major bank in every major city gets occupied to the point where it shuts down. Then do it the next day. And the next day. And the next day. I guarantee you that would make a difference, but Occupy has alienated enough people that there will never ben enough manpower to facilitate that. People are too angry at the fact that they can't fucking get home on time.

I am sure all the pro-Occupy people will jump all over me, but I will bet my life savings that the majority of Amercians are more pissed off at Occupy than in support of it. Why? Because outside of jobless 20 year olds and college kids, the rest of America is busy doing things like building houses, pushing a mouse around, bagging groceries, holding road signs, etc. Day in and day out, for a paycheck. The reality of having to feed yourself and your family is still more pressing than our economic and political situation. Until that balance changes, Occupy is wasting its time and making me late for work. Now put that in your pipe and fuck off, Occupy.

@ 25, they were trying to march when the police attacked them. On a Sunday. Their object was to reach Montgomery, not to sit there for an hour.

Want to give that another try?

Slog, you've done something terrible to my link...

File:Bloody_Sunday-officers_await_demonstrators.jpeg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloody…

Matt from Denver: Edmund Pettus Bridge.

@25 They did not block the bridge, they were just trying to cross it, it was the police that were doing the blocking in that case and were rightly the villains.

So Matt...why the "concern trolling"?

I really don't think you
a) understand the problem e.i. the issues
b) understand the movement
c) give a flying fuck.

This is a crisis and you are not doing anything. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

@ 30 - please read all comments before posting. Specifically comment 28.

@ 32, I'll take this to mean that you can't answer me without acknowledging that I'm right.

@28, I'm not sure I see the distinction, unless it's that you support (retroactively) the aims of the civil rights marchers, and less so for Occupiers?

The point is that a little inconvenience is part of the deal. If there's no disruption, there's no protest. In this case, the disruption appears to have been pretty well managed by all involved.

@34...

No, sonny...just answer the questions.

And in fact they used the sidewalk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s00-OoZAW…

Sometimes you're a blowhard, Goldy, but today you are awesome.

@37: the video you link shows a huge line of marchers streaming down the middle of the road. You should watch it.

@ 35, but who you inconvenience matter. Civil Rights didn't inconvenience the people they were trying to win over.

I'm not saying "don't inconvenience anyone," I'm saying choose your targets. OWS is brilliant because it confronts the 1% at its source. Most of the other Occupy groups aren't doing that, and OS wasn't doing that last night. (Confronting Jamie Dimon was awesome, and one of OS's real accomplishments.)

@ 36, you asked one intellectually dishonest and rhetorical question. What would you like to know?

I wonder who at The Stranger is camped out with the OWS group at SCCC? I'm sure that they have a reporter camped out with the group to get a really good knowledge of what they are about on a day to day basis, right?

I like the part where you mention that people don't like marching in the rain. It reminded me of the Cal State Dominguez Hills professors who went on a one day strike yesterday:

"I don't want to go one strike, but I will"

@39 Those were the police. Watch at around the 30 second mark. The protesters are walking along the side of the bridge on what appears to be a sidewalk.

@41...

Do you understand that there is an issue of corporate overreach and gross inequality at the level of wages and social justice in the US and/or the world?

Do you agree or disagree that this is a problem?

If the answer to last question is yes...what do you propose should be done about it?

That better?

@40, that seems a very sad misunderstanding of the tactics used. The civil rights movement wasn't wrapped up in "winning people over"; they did what they could to take their rights directly and, failing that to force changes with their actions.

You can say blocking the bridge isn't a valid protest tactic, but you need to provide a better reason than "inconvenience". Again, inconvenience is the only way it could be effective and the people you need to inconvenience are the people who you need to hear the message.

You know what else "works" in terms of gaining media exposure? Terrorism. That doesn't mean it's okay or shouldn't be critizied as a tactic.

As numerous other commenters have pointed out, the classic civil disobedience actions that have garnered the most sympathy have involved breaking a unjust law (does OWS believe it unjust that pedestrians aren't allowed to sit in the middle of major arterials?) and doing so in a way that is calm and otherwise cooperative with the authorities (not shouting at and jostling with the police). Also, you should expect and accept that you will be punished for your violation of the law, not expect that the fact that your act is a form of political speech should allow you to get off scott-free. Think lunch counter sit-ins or Ghandi making salt at the sea.

@44, that's your problem, you only watched the first 30 seconds.

Watch at 3:43. Those are the protesters.

@ 45, yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly.

What I would like to see is all the Occupy protestors start organizing. REAL organizing - decide on which reform measures to pass (I favor increasing income tax on the wealthy and on corporations that do business in the US, regardless of where they're based, and revoking corporate citizenship, for starters) and getting Democrats to get it done. Get real progressives elected. Don't allow the movement to be sidetracked.

Now that I've answered that, can you tell me whether these goals are being pursued by Occupy? If not, why?

@ 46, that's not true. Getting Jim Crow laws repealed and the Voter Rights Act passed meant getting white people to see the injustice of their situation. That's called "winning people over," and those who were won over weren't antagonized.

You can pick on "inconvenience," but it isn't the inconvenience itself that's the issue, it's whether or not it's persuasive. I think we can see that, to the average person - the people who don't think much about these issues, but who have places to go and things to do - wouldn't be won over by people blocking their way.

@45

Now that you seem to have nailed down a general cause for Occupy how about you answer the following multiple choice question:

How could Occupy, a movement concerned with "corporate overreach and gross inequality at the level of wages and social justice in the US and/or the world" effectively and efficiently target the political and corporate entities responsible for inequality?

A: Camp on publicly owned property for an indefinite amount of time
B: shut down public infrastructure by orchestrating marches on things like streets and critical bridgeways
C: Systematically target both corporate centers and goverment buildings, continuing to make the daily operation of these places unbearable

@48 That was a latter march, not the Bloody Sunday one.

"An if you think their civil disobedience has been an inconvenience to you, trying being a participant."

I love that this line appears in a post that mentions misspelled signs.

Goldy - you are absolutely right that conflict, with police or whomever else, is sometimes necessary to get media attention.

Nevertheless, OWS needs to mix up their media stunts lest the whole thing devolves into Nickelsville Part II.

@52:

1- what's your point?

2- you can find pictures of the bloody Sunday marchers in the road on wikipedia. I tried to link one, but slog broke the link.

3- is it really your claim that civil rights marchers were trying to avoid causing a disruption in the eyes of white people?

Yeah but people who could be supporting the movement are now thinking screw you

@47 & elsewhere:

To argue that the only legitimate form of civil disobedience is an act that disobeys an unjust law is inherently silly, as it would instantly remove civil disobedience as an option for protesting the vast majority of injustices. How do protesters disobey the repeal of Glass-Steagle? How do protesters disobey the absence of adequate financial regulations or the failure of Congress to invest in decrepit infrastructure? Tell me exactly what laws would be more appropriate for them to break?

When environmentalists protesting a timber harvest chain themselves to trees, they are not protesting laws that prohibit them from chaining themselves to trees, they are protesting a sanctioned timber harvest that they view to be ecologically damaging or unsustainable. Is this an illegitimate form of civil disobedience, because they are not violating the actual law they are protesting—the law authorizing the timber sale or harvest?

I understand the point you and other are making, and yes, civil disobedience probably generates more empathy when it directly disobeys the law being protested, but surely you can't be arguing that civil disobedience should be unavailable in all other circumstances?

@55 My point is that they acted in a manner designed to cause the least disruption to regular people possible while still attaining their goals.

I am sure at some point they were in the road and there certainly were marches that blocked traffic, but the fact that they were walking in a very orderly fashion along the side of the road when they were attacked by the police is part of what makes the scene so powerful. They made the cops(and militia) the aggressors as the protesters were doping nothing wrong. The cops could not say they were trying to clear the road for traffic and people watching could see that the marchers were simply trying to exercise their rights.

They were certainly trying to cause disruptions for their opponents though, but they made sure as much as they could that they disrupted them in a manner tied directly to what they were trying to change. In this case registering to vote.

Fucking with people's attempts to get home after work does not exactly endear the same sympathy.

@57 It should at least be somewhat targeted at either the law, or the people responsible. This was neither. Occupying Olympia however would be.

This would be like protesting logging on public lands by blocking trails and campsites in those lands. You're hurting the wrong people.

@ 57, when protesters chain themselves to trees, they weren't keeping people from going home to their families. And, in a sense, it was breaking an unjust law, one that allowed timber companies to wreck forests with no concern for the consequences.

What I'm trying to say is that civil disobedience needs to be thought through. Its goal needs to be more than just getting on TV - it needs to think about how best to present its message, whatever that is, and ensure that people in the middle - people without strong, in any, opinions - see them in as sympathetic light as is possible.

Keep in mind that our opponents are skilled propagandists. They're the ones that took John Kerry's greatest asset - his Vietnam service - and turned it into a liability. It won't take a second's effort for them to portray protests like last night's as pointless and anarchistic.

@57: It's a legitimate form or protest. But it ain't civil disobedience.

I have no problem with OWS protests, just wish I understood exactly what they want to accomplish. How will they know they've won?

They certainly don't deserve to be victimized by police brutality, though. I don't recall the police getting rough with gun-toting T'Baggers.

@37 Great clip.

"Wallace never intended for that violence to take place. His police chief lost control of himself, and what you had was a police riot."

Why oh why is it so hard to fire a police officer for doing a bad job and breaking the law?

@49 They are doing what they find useful. Maybe it's only useful in that it will get people like you to realize what you think would make more sense. Now you, Matt, you can go make that happen. Imagine the power if all the people who are irritated at Occupy's tactics would use that to motivate themselves to get real progressives elected. Go forth -- all of you who object to Occupy's tactics but not to the goals. You are legion, you can make this happen. Yay you!

Thank you Goldy! I have been amazed by some of the criticisms I have read or heard. I sincerely believe civil disobedience is my patriotic duty. I have only joined in our local marches a couple times but I held my own when a cop pushed his bike against me as we blocked the intersection and I will do it again with kindness and respect for what the cops are called to do—which is no more important than my civil disobedience. My hope is that folks will be shocked into a little reflection while they are stuck in traffic. It is the duty of thinking, caring people to do our part to make improvements. How many rights we now take as a given would we enjoy if brave people had not taken to the streets to force society to move towards fairness and equity? I can still touch family members who were born into a world that did not allow them to vote because they didn’t have a penis or had to get a permission note from their husband to apply for a job at Woolworths. Not long ago it was illegal—against the Law! to be gay and interracial marriage was prohibited. Hard to believe we could be so backwards. Well we are still backwards—we still don’t have marriage parity and our health care system is an immoral clusterfuck of modern day robber barons profiting on peoples illness. Civil disobedience is the mid-wife to social change.

@ 63, I guess I have to move you into the column of intellectually dishonest sloggers, don't I? That's a shame.

I'm already practicing what I'm preaching. I'm writing emails to my elected officials, and sharing ideas with folks here in Denver. If you have any more ideas for how to do this, please share them. In the meantime, thanks for your uninformed condescension.

@61, how is it not clear what they want to accomplish?

There was an official call to action:

http://occupywallst.org/article/Septembe…

Most of the individual actions have one or more specific messages. In this case, austerity causing the neglect of critical infrastructure and the resulting unemployment. In other cases, growing income inequality, regressive tax policy, power imbalances in politics and a variety of other issues.

It's not hard to put all this together.

I could give a fuck about this "civil disobedience." It has no traction. It's not going anywhere. It's just annoying.

tl;dr this thread: "NOBODY CAN ARGUE ANYTHING UNTIL THEY ANSWER MY SUPER SERIOUS QUESTIONS!"

HARUMPH READ YER HRRNG A DRNG BEFORE YOU FLAP YOUR LIPS AT ME BOY

@65 you keep such a list? Very impressive. I'm happy to be on it in any capacity.

I didn't accuse you of not practicing what you preach. I encouraged you to do more. Couldn't everyone always do more for their cause? When you say you are "sharing ideas with folks here in Denver," what does that mean to you? Just chatting with people who already know you? Or stepping up to some kind of leadership position in a progressive or otherwise grass-roots organization?

@20 "Self-inflicted inconvenience isn't the same thing."

Without a doubt the silliest dada I've read in about fifteen minutes.

Following up myself @70 -- the fact that Occupy refuses to have leaders doesn't mean that leaders wouldn't be useful. I think it's great for people to take on the responsibility of leading other people, and helping good ideas come to fruition.

@ 70, if you were being sincere, I'm sorry. I read your comment as being sarcastic.

At this point, I'm mostly sharing my ideas with protesters I know via Facebook. I may try to get more involved, but I'll have to come up with some more intestinal fortitude for it. I tend to get frustrated with these groups because they just want to include everybody and everyone's perspective, and this kind of thing requires focus. Sorry, Mumia justice seekers, but your cause has no place here. That kind of thing seems to be anathema to demonstrators. But I'll give it some serious consideration.

@ 71, you have a better word for it?

Goldy @57:

I appreciate your taking the time to respond thoughtfully.

I agree that the environmentalist-chained-to-a-tree scenario isn't directly violating an unjust law, but at least it is directly preventing an unjust action. OWS can't make that claim; I don't think what they regard as unjust is traffic crossing the University Bridge.

Let's assume what OWS actually wants is more redistribution from rich to poor. (It's not actually clear that's true, but that's another argument.) Then civil disobedience is support of that aim would be to steal from some rich people and give to some poor people, and publicly surrender yourself for trial. I'm not saying that's right or likely to garner much sympathy, but it would at least be in the true spirit of civil disobedience against an unjust state.

If you aren't prepared to do that, then civil disobedience isn't really a justifiable tactic for OWS's aims. By all means march, protest, rally, and so on, but do so within the bounds set by the state (e.g. obtain protest permits and obey their conditions). That's mostly what the tea party protesters did and, as you said, they still got attention.

But don't just break random laws beacuse lawbreaking gets you press. That's not civil disobedience, that's a riot.

This debate on wether the OWS is a legitimate civil disobedience is interesting, but I think a lot of you are taking the American Civil Rights Movement and the Indian Nationalist Movement in the context of the popular narrative. It wasn't ever just MLK and Gandhi, there will militant elements going on as well.
Both men created a happy face to help hide the ugly fist of rebellion. I think ultimately judging the OWS movements in the frame of previous movements is the wrong way to go.
Just my two cents. It's worth a 50th of a dollar.

@75 I think it was the guns and the fact that it came from people who normally don't protest was their key to attention.

What is it Goldy and OS don't get about how civil disobedience works? Pretty much everything. They clearly slept through history class.

Thank you, Goldy, for inspiring a thoughtful debate about an extremely important issue. I for one have been shocked but not awwed at how many SLOG readers and Seattle folks in general have been super critical of the civil disobedience side of OS (and the other Occupy Movements). More so, I've noticed a lot of the same readers criticizing a variety of the movement's tactics and strategies, to the point where they don't seem supportive at all. But all of them end up saying "if they did it my way, I would support it" and getting on the SLOG to argue about how the movement is pissing people off, misinterpretting this or that civil rights leader's writings or losing their support because it's not exactly what they want.

It's ironic that this very criticism is precisely why so many others DO support the movement. It is far-reaching, totally adaptable, and inclusive of a wide variety of strategies and tactics. There is a place for everyone (from unionists marching for benefits and wages, to white collar workers complaining about losing their good paying jobs, to anarchists marching against police brutality, to liberation priests protecting innocent victims from being pepper sprayed, to bands, MC's and DJs throwing street parties and rave protests). And yet so many supposedly sympathetic people find reasons to criticize it. I wonder why?

I think it comes down to passive-aggressiveness and a general fear of being wrong or looking bad. A lot of people are afraid of being arrested, losing their jobs or pissing off their friends. They extend this same fear to others and jealously critique them for taking the very same risks they are afraid to take. They then spout off about inconvenience, saying this isn't what social movements are supposed to do, as a means to prove that they will be willing to participate when the movement does the "right" thing.

This is a patently incorrect yet totally predictable fitting understanding of how movements work. The women's suffrage movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement (which occupied many bridges and was split between non-violent and violent factions), the anti-apartheid movement and -well, actually, all of the most successful movements ever- all used a wide variety of strategies and tactics mobilizing different segments of the population. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. As a society, we unfortunately only get the "canned" historical version of how things happened, rather than a detailed play-by-play. Even many well meanin liberals have a pretty basic misunderstanding of how it works.

What pretty much all successful social movements HAVE done -whether you like this wording or not- is inconvenience people to the point where the movement's issues become household words, ultimately driving many more people to action. In that sense, the way all you SLOG readers are reacting is exactly how people have reacted historically. You complain about the "radicals" in the movement doing their crazy stuff. You say this isn't how historical movements pulled it off. You say that people are marginalizing more folks than they are attracting. You complain and whine about how you're being inconvenienced... until you eventually realize that it's working, that you won't be frowned upon for your views, that you have the power to create the change you want. You then join. This is exactly what happened in the 1960s. There are entire college classes and sections in libraries on it. Go do your reading.

I am an activist and labor scholar with thirteen years of experience in various social movements and I can safely say this is the biggest and most powerful thing I have ever participated in. It already far surpasses the anti-globalization movement in size and scope and is truly the first globally inclusive movement for economic justice. There have already been more people arrested (many thousands across the US) in the last two months than there were during the entire four years around the US anti-globalization movement. In fact, I would venture to say there have been more arrests than since the anti-Vietnam era. This is precisely because people understand how dire the situation has become and are willing to jeopardize their own safety in order to fight for equality. They -we- are engaging in the tried and true practice of annoying people (both the powers that be AND the general public) until the message is picked up en masse.

So why don't you guys get off your computers and out into the streets. Join us in our marches, occupations, sit-ins, walk-outs, roadblocks and strikes if you like. OR come up with your own creative ways to protest and make your voice heard if you don't agree with how we do it. But don't just sit and wait until it's safer to act. That is precisely what kills the vast majority of progressive movements... but, like a lot of us are saying, we're not going anywhere. See you in the streets, whenever you finally get around to it!

@75 "obtain protest permits and obey their conditions"

The people I know in the Occupy movement used to do that. Then the government started putting people in free speech cages, miles from where the protesters' audience was. "Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech… citing http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dissent_re…

Goldy, you are 100% correct.

And @ 79 FT-MEGA-WIN!

"Do you think the organizers of yesterday's action wanted to piss off motorists and bus commuters?"

Yes. I think this is exactly what their point was because they have SAID SO over and over again on posts here.

@ 81 - Last night's action WAS an extremely well-coordinated event with good strategy. It was organized by unions across the country and was arguably more well-organized and effective than most OWS actions. You are criticizing the movement for doing exactly what you want, which doesn't really make sense.

@ 83 - Thanks! ; )

As someone who got off a bus and walked home in the freezing rain last night, I am one of many for whom the bridge stunt caused me to go from on the fence to against Occupy Seattle. It annoys the shit out of me that Occupy Seattle supporters are incapable of making an argument that does not rely on false dichotomy.

If we disagree with Occupy Seattle, it means we love the recession and "billionaires raping the planet." If we disagree with the bridge action, it means we can't comprehend the idea of civil disobedience. If we criticize Occupy Seattle tactics, it means we are in favor of the police pepper-spraying an 84-year-old. If we disagree with the bridge stunt, it means we're against all forms of protest or civil disobedience in all situations. I had one Occupy kid tell me I need to "stop watching the Kardashians and start paying attention," as those the only two possible states of existence are being a scruffy Occupy anarchist, or a vapid bimbo obsessed with celebrity gossip.

Nuance, motherfuckers- can you speak it?!

@86 I'm sincerely sorry for your annoyance last night. What steps do you think we should take to enact our shared goals? (Assuming you share the goals of reducing inequalities of wealth in this country...)

Go furry girl! Maybe if someone had used this stunt to give a thought provoking and poignant speech I could see the good in it, but in my opinion it was a pointless act to get attention like a child banging pots and pans till mommy gets mad and stops them...well, that would be the attention you so desperately wanted...what are you going to do with it? Nothing. Congrats on pissing people off and inconveniencing them, to bad there was no redeeming message for THAT particular act. MLK JR. gave undeniably thought provoking speeches...that meant much more to the civil rights movement than just the marches. Him, Ghandi, John Lennon, JFK etc...these people were not assassinated for merely clogging up traffic. I think of you are going to put people down who are against what they perceive as pointless actions, then maybe you should REALLY put your ass on the line and openly expose specific targets of your movement.

Sad to see the lack of focus coming out of OS. With these kind of misguided tactics, I give them another month before they collapse completely - when all but the most fervent believers will be too embarrassed to be associated with them. I'm certainly embarrassed to say I support them now.

I'd love to help, guys, but I refuse to do something as off-message (and - frankly - as purely thuggish) as blocking a bridge at rush hour or preventing vacationers from accessing their hotel rooms.

Focus, people!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/busine…

Read it and weep, kiddies. OS, OWS and the movement is here to stay, precisely for the reasons Goldy, others and myself have brought up in this thread.

@79 that was ear-opening. Interesting. Thanks.

@ 90, this is a thread about the effectiveness of actions like last night's, not about whether OWS is going anywhere or not.

I'm sure it's already been said, but this post by Goldy is beneath his considerable intelligence (not flattery! I admire Goldy as much as I disagree with him).

Like @5 said, there are lots of things that would "work" to get media attention that don't involve severely inconveniencing regular people who didn't create the problems OWS addresses.

But it did work in that it got media attention. Of course, I could make a long list of inconsiderate, misguided, pointless actions that would get media attention. Getting media attention is easy. Getting the right kind of media attention requires consideration, compassion, and strategic thinking.

It's one thing to close down a street to march down it, but a bridge? It's so obviously a bad idea that it is bound to sap support from the movement.

Goldy asks what we "don't get about civil disobedience." But Goldy obviously doesn't get that civil disobedience is supposed to be aimed at a particular target. Goldy doesn't get that civil disobedience is a weapon that requires thoughtful, strategic use, or it backfires, as yesterday's demonstration did.

It's not about being "polite" (and it's silly that I even have to point that out). It's about being impolite to the right people.

@87 You people could start by not going out of your way to fuck with transit, for one.

I talked to my bus driver on the 49, and he said "the protesters" had informed Seattle Metro they would be marching along the route of the 43, giving Metro a chance to divert 43 buses to the 49 route. Once the time came for the march, however, the Occupy folk changed their supposed plan and went down the street where they knew Metro buses were being re-routed, Broadway/10th/the route of the 49. How is going out of your way to screw up as many transit lines as possible sticking it to the super-rich?

Further, it bothers me that the camp is creating a public health hazard at Seattle Central. http://www.seattlecentral.edu/president/… Are community colleges the enemy, too?

I'd have genuine respect for Occupy Seattle if you were occupying bank-owned foreclosed houses, rather than causing traffic chaos and be-filthing a community college. Protest is pointless without a clear target and without clear goals.

Goldy, civil disobedience is a good thing.

Wanna camp in public spaces: great!
Wanna forgo permits to protest: do it!
Wanna do daily sit-in at corporate banks: yes!
Wanna storm the Sheraton during some speech by some 1% asshole: absolutely perfect!

So, why are you suggesting that obstructing those of us who support the above strategies of civil disobedience on our commute home to our families is somehow productive?

Also, suggesting that no one can oppose the strategy of last night's protest and simultaneously support the underlying values of the Occupy Movement (addressing wealth disparities in America) is ridiculous. And, suggesting that such individuals are some closeted supporters of the 1% is just theocratic bigotry!

Last night's strategy was equivalent to holding up a long line at a soup kitchen to protest the need for more food programs to serve the homeless.

People in the Occupy Movement aren't stupid, they just have to think first!

I keep hearing Occupy supporters defend the bridge stunt by saying that it doesn't matter if people were inconvenienced. How is it a progressive and populist idea to insist that the needs of the masses don't matter at all compared to the desire of a small group to have fun and do whatever they feel like doing? If Occupy supporters want to take the line that *my* problems don't matter, then why on earth should I care about *their* problems? It's bizarre that a movement that's claims to be about "the masses" and "the majority" couldn't give less of a shit about what the majority thinks, and focuses solely on their own self-indulgent self-interest. It's the exact same mentality as a greedy corporate billionaire.

I agree with Matt from Denver.

1) Boycotting buses HURT the City's revenue stream, they were running empty buses and losing money. It hit them where it counts.

There is no analogue between inconveniencing the 99% as they try to live their lives and hurting the very organization that is oppressing people.

2) The other thing is that by defying Jim Crow laws by sitting in the front of the bus, by sitting at lunch counters, etc, they were (again) BREAKING the very laws that were being used to oppress people. THAT'S civil disobedience, when you go out and BREAK the very law that is being used to oppress people.

Standing on a bridge, occupying a park or standing in the street doesn't count as civil disobedience with respect to fixing the things occupy claims to be fighting for, as it has zero to do with the policies that caused the economic crisis in the first place.

Take for example the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/w…

The article outlines (very clearly) the regulatory changes, regulators dropping the ball, banking practices, etc, which caused the crisis.

What about occupy to this point has done ANYTHING towards addressing these very specific items?

Answer?

Nothing.

There is no connection between standing in a park protesting and getting the government to re-implement Glass-Steagal, regulate derivatives, put back in place the pre '04 rules around banking leverage, etc.

Occupy isn't even talking in that language, i.e. the economic language that could fix the problem.

It's like trying to address a leg broken while playing football without I dunno, X-Raying it, Setting it, etc, and instead speaking in the language of why football is a bad thing. You could argue that football is a bad thing, but first and foremost maybe we should fix dude's leg.

@ Dr. Devo

The fact that a movement is "here to stay" has zero to do with whether or not that movement will actually accomplish anything productive.

A lot of so called "movements" have had staying power, but staying power isn't analogous to positive benefit.

Not to mention the fact it's grossly immature to say something is here to stay when it hasn't been around for a year yet.