I hope that the members of the Occupy movement will reconsider their decision to shutdown the port. The port is an economic engine for many who live and work in Oakland, not for the 1% but the 99%. 

The Occupy Movement will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Oakland's Occupy Movement may think that shutting down the port will lead to a win - win solution, but they forget the operators have options. Operators will reconsider using the port if the Oakland Occupiers continue either to threaten shutdown or to shutdown the port. A loss of operators will mean a mean a loss of jobs for the 99%. Long Beach, Los Angeles and Seattle will be more than happy to accept ships and create jobs for their residents. In reality, the Oakland Occupiers are moving towards a win - lose situation and they are not winning.

If the Occupiers have an issue with the 1%, then they need to participate in the discussion. When people do not vote and from what I heard this morning and observed about the recent Oakland mail-in election high numbers of young people and voters in general do note vote. People are self motivated, and  until the Occupiers decide to participate in the process, people in the position to effect change have no incentive to listen to them.  

Monica, your points about strategy are irrelevant because you are disregarding the fact that this is a shut down of all the ports on the West Coast. So the operators don't have many attractive options. They will suffer for this.

And to talk about this as a loss of jobs for the 99%. Unless a popular social movement like Occupy manages to shift power in this country away from the wealthy, those jobs you are talking about will continue to see a loss of real wages, and erosion of Union strength, and they have already seen a great deal of that. Due to the efforts of Walmart - and the many other similarly useless big box retailers which Walmart has become the symbol of -  began working hard at union busting and forcing ports to change their rules to benefit them, the Ports have already become less attractive places in which to work, as well as to live near.

So-- tell me how you solve these problems at the Ballot Box? We've done the best we can with our political process but its been coopted, corrupted, and otherwise stolen from us by the wealthy. I vote in every election. I stay up on the issues. I talk with others about them. But it just doesn't matter because innumerable important decisions are made without any public input or oversight. Such as how groups like Walmart changed the way Ports operate around the country. Or how groups like ALEC enable corporations to write state laws and work directly with our representatives to get these laws on the books - for a healthy bribe of course. It goes on and on and on.

You'd have to be living in ignorance to believe that merely voting will do anything to address the rampant corruption that enables the .01% to dominate our political process. Even actively participating in public process without bribes to hand out to the monkeys in the machine like Don Perata in Oakland or Willie Brown in San Francisco as a good way to bang your head against a wall only to see all the fruits of your labor flushed down the toilet as soon as "the money" enters the room. 

Aaron, I am fully aware that the Occupy Movement intends to shutdown all the ports. I don't think this will happen but you are missing the bigger point. Oakland's elected leadership has not demonstrated an ability to attract and retain business. This is for a number of reasons and when viewed collectively - Oakland's unfriendly business climate, perceived crime problem, and unpredicatable business shutdowns through riots and shutdowns makes Oakland an unattractive investment. So while other cities may shutdown for a minute, Oakland, because it will be seen as the epicenter for a bunch of uninformed rabblerouser supported by a mayor, who fails to understand her role in developing the economy, will lose in the long run. 

Rules are made by the people who show up. You and I may vote but the vast number of people do not. 

Aaron, I am fully aware that the Occupy Movement intends to shutdown all the ports. I don't think this will happen but you are missing the bigger point. Oakland's elected leadership has not demonstrated an ability to attract and retain business. This is for a number of reasons and when viewed collectively - Oakland's unfriendly business climate, perceived crime problem, and unpredicatable business shutdowns through riots and shutdowns makes Oakland an unattractive investment. So while other cities may shutdown for a minute, Oakland, because it will be seen as the epicenter for a bunch of uninformed rabblerouser supported by a mayor, who fails to understand her role in developing the economy, will lose in the long run. 

Rules are made by the people who show up. You and I may vote but the vast number of people do not. 

(1) You were going after Oakland Occupy, and yet this is a West Coast strike organized by many up and down the West Coast. If you are fully aware of these things and that the goal is to shut down all the ports include that in your argument. This fact however deeply undercuts your argument, and so by not mentioning this, it makes it appears that you are attempting to persuade by misleading. 

(2) The most significant employers in Oakland are public entities. This undercuts your argument about an anti-business climate causing a jobs problem in Oakland. Its more the case that an anti-labor attitude amongst business is the problem with jobs. Given that hospitals and state and federal government are the most significant employers in Oakland - it begs the question what you are complaining about here. Are you talking about the decline of industrial jobs in oakland (which mostly went away decades ago)? Or are you talking about businesses that only pay minimum wage? How does anyone attract business and not kill your tax base in an economy that works to shed jobs rather than creates them? What exactly is the anti-business policy in Oakland?

This "jobs" talking point is unconvincing and unsubstantiated.

(3) Quan is decidedly not on the side of the Occupy movement and is likely to be removed from office because of it. 

(1) The movement has no legs. From what I read of the movement, the decision to strike was developed by the less than competent leads of the Oakland movement. Not misleading, selective use of information, the point is shutting down the Oakland port is bad for Oakland. If you think otherwise, you are just as uninformed as the rest. It does not help when people from within the movement tell reporters if some people need to suffer that is okay. Why harm the very group you are trying to help? Would it not make more sense to bring them on board?

(2) You lack a full understanding of jobs and employment. I am not going to discuss jobs with someone who does not understand job creation.

(3) I would never vote for Quan, but Quan is the movement's best friend. If you think anyone else would tolerate that nonsense in front of City Hall, you are mistaken.  

Monica, it is very interesting that you are unable to defend your intial statements, and when I go after your "bigger point" of jobs in oakland you are completely incapable of any meaningful response.

When you have substantive arguments please let me know.