Haters gonna hate. Especially people who aren't awake to what's going on in the country or are trying to incite violence.

Mock us all you want, but you are wrong and we are not going away. Maybe if you came down to Oscar Grant Plaza and saw what was going on, and who all was there (including us middle aged disabled folk, elderly people, the nurse's union, etc.) you wouldn't be spewing such hate at something you don't understand.

This article just shows me that you are still trapped in the old paradigm, still asleep as we like to say, and that makes me feel sorry for you.

Now excuse me while I go and do my duty as an American citizen and speak out against injustice and tyrrany.

That's me w/the Occupy Oakland sign. I couldn't disagree more w/this article. Clearly the author hasn't taken the time to observe the community that has formed outside city hall. People af all races, religions, ethnicities are occupying peacfully, together.

So long as people like this author continue to view this country along racial lines, the cycle of inequity, social and economic injustice will continue. This is a human movement. That is all. 

Kerie and OakFoSho, it is not I who is stuck in old patterns. Nor, if you read my piece, do I "view this country along racial lines," I was quoting someone who does. But my most important point is that, while you're heart is in the right place, neither of you is doing anything to improve anything by hanging out in Ogawa Plaza. You guys need to get your head out of the 60's and get active in work that will actually do something positive, and not just enforce negative stereotypes about protest by chanting and waving signs.

Signs and songs and speeches to fellow travelers and drum circles ain't gonna do shit. It's all about the money and until we all get that, and get on that, we're all just wasting time and energy.

murray, maybe you should ask POC what they think, rather then tell everyone what you think.

Eric, it's ridiculous to suggest that POC are some kind of block who have a shared opinion. You couldn't even define "POC" let alone create a useful poll. And the point of an esssayist is to share what he or she thinks. Anyone who deems themselves a POC spokesperson, or anyone else, can express themselves right here on this very site which works hard to try to include as many voices as it can.

Murray, i am a POC. so any definition includes me.

What i take umbrage with is your assumption that you can somehow speak for this demographic, or can tell other people what it is and isn't. You want to compare O/O to the 60s, but in truth, your tactic is the same quasi-liberal BS which has been going on ever since Frederick Douglass broke from the Quaker abolitionists because he defined himself differently than what they were comfortable with.

In other words, POC are quite capable of speaking for themselves.

Now, on to your essay. To be perfectly frank, I find your sarcasm to be a huge turnoff. I just don't like the way you have framed your points--which misses the point IMO. Perhaps had you done so differently, there would have been a constructive message there. As it is, it reads like a rant, and one that is badly off-target in many areas. It comes off as pompous and ill-informed.

While there are parallels to the kind of collective, ad-hoc organizing which happened in the '60s--which did result in culture shift, let's remember--there are key differences. I'm not going to address all of them here, since as a journalist myself i have my own thoughts and will be compiling them at a later date.

But consider the fact that on day one, as my photo essay @OL shows, POC were actively involved in every facet of O/O from the beginning. as i arrived on day two, i was greeted by a multicultural drum/dance circle led by the Funkquarians.This level of cultural contribution alone speaks to the fact that this is more than just "psuedo-60s pantomimes."

later that night, hip-hopper Lupe Fiasco donated supplies and addressed the crowd. and today, day 4, Boots Riley of the Coup and others will be performing. There is a film series, workshops, trainings, etc. Yet you see the glass as half-empty. This says more about the limitations of your perspective than anything else.

I fail to see how your view is any different from a typical conservative/right-wing skeptical position--except that you identify as liberal and progressive. Well, you may be liberal, but you ain't as progressive as you think, buddy.

You find this gathering "meaningless" and declare it a "farce." The discussions i'm having with people around this activity--and what i'm seeing with my own eyes--suggest otherwise.

You are obviously entitled to your opinions, but your opinions would be more valuable to others if they reflected the reality of what's going on in a more pragmatic and cohesive way. Of course, that's just MY opinion. So take it with a grain of salt if you so choose.

Murray, you're skirting the bounds of OL acceptable use with this article--especially the attacks on Richard Wright. Your rhetoric is very condescending and commentators are treating you with far more grace than you have treated Occupy Oakland participants.  Please find ways to share your views that don't demean others.

Hi Murray,

I'm one of the OL cofounders and I personally asked Richard for permission to repost this article that was originally written as a private note to other activists and community organizers. And in the interest of full disclosure I also consider Richard to be a friend and know him to be a very active and involved member of the local grassroots activist community.

That being said, this essay is in violation of our terms of service guidelines against defamatory and abusive language. Disagreeing with the content of Richard's article, or any content appearing on Oakland Local is fine, but characterizing someone else's views as "dopey" and "self important," especially someone you do not know, is simply abusive.

Judging from your previous articles on this site I understand you're passionate about local issues and we welcome your further contributions, but if you'd like to continue contributing to this site, please refrain from this kind of character assassination in the future or you will be blocked. Please refer to the OL Terms of Service here: http://oaklandlocal.com/tos.

An apology and possible conversation with Richard, wouldn't hurt either :) You'd probably find that you're passionate about quite a few of the same issues.

Now, that the ugly business is addressed, I appreciate you adding your point of view on the subject. The only way we're going to come to some understandings around these issues is to express our feelings and work from there.  

The problem I have with this essay is that there are a lot of assumptions that just don't ring true. You state that "Even the briefest of History lessons would clue Wright in that people of color have not in the past found protest to be "a space that can be culturally alienating." But in your May 31st "To Pimp or not to Pimp" article on this site, you yourself state that a campaign you were a part of included no people of color and your attempts to bridge those gaps were met with skepticism. 

Instead of dismissing these concerns as invalid or a one time occurence, I'd recommend you take the time to listen to (not lecture/attempt to speak for) the voices coming from various POC communities. And while you're right that POC's don't speak with a single voice, the assertion that the involvement of POC's and other marginalized communities in larger social protests "just happens" as a result of shared frustration shows a very limited view of the evolution of social protest in America.

As a person of color and someone who's witnessed movement building on a grassroots level I can verify that inclusion is very often a central point of conversation among all concerned parties.  The movements and consensus building doesn't just happen. There are real issues of priveledge, agency and culture specific agendas that activists and organizers grapple with regularly. I encourage you to dig deeper in your analysis. The ongoing conversations happening right now in Frank Ogawa Plaza and online on the Occupy Oakland Facebook group are good places to start.

And I agree with you that there should be a focus on banking and monetary equality but your assumption that those conversations aren't happening is simply untrue. In fact this is one of the primary conversations happening right now. In addition to conversations around diversity and inclusion. Again, join the conversation and see what's happening for yourself before passing judgement based on a few photos or quick observations. 

Lastly (almost off my soapbox) from your background it appears that you have quite a bit of experience in local and national political campaigns and you seem to identify with a community that might be turned off by some of the more theatrical aspects of the movement. In addition to going down and actually listening to the various experiences of these grassroots activists, I'd encourage you to offer your knowledge and advise based on your perspective (while respecting the perspectives of others). 

You're right that we have a lot of work to do and it's going to take concerted and concrete efforts. I think it'd be a betteruse of your time to help develop those efforts rather than standing on the sidelines throwing stones.  

The drums and dancing are certainly a part of building community, but there is very serious and strategic work being done as well.  And comeon, how you gonna hate on drums and dancing?!! 

:)

If you'd like to talk more about what's going on or need recommendations on who to talk to and where, shoot me an email at kwan@oaklandlocal.com.

ouch. go Kwan!

I did not read all of Kwan's comments but they do highlight an issue I have with this "daily rag." I did not find anything abusive or defamatory in Murray's piece. Keep in mind, I am not a huge fan of his writing but I see nothing wrong with the content of the above story.

Frankly, I think most of the people congregating on the plaza are just hanging out because it is the flavor of the week. Nevermind that they are preventing local school children from participating in physical activity. As a POC I am just a little annoyed by the us and them mentality. I love my people but y'all are killing me. The blacks need to focus on shared economic interest not issues of race. We might actually get somewhere. 

Kwan and Susan,
I appreciate your feedback, and let me start by re-enforcing your suggestion that we are on the same page in terms of outcome. We do not want different things. What is on the table here are methods to achieve those outcomes, about which we differ wildly and about which I feel as strongly as you. You are right, I am very experienced in political campaigns and activities, and as such I think I have learned a lot of pragmatic lessons to achieve outcomes. What I see is energy and talent being spent on efforts that I don't think will be helpful or successful, and in fact, are detrimental to the outcomes we all want to see. That's why I speak up, to try to engender debate. Ideas need debate and to be defended and only those that go through this process are successful in any discipline.

The voices of discontent have been marginalized by their own actions, and those actions have allowed those in the more sophisticated power structure to continue to keep us that way in the eyes of mainstream America. Images of gay men in San Francisco, nude in dog collars during parades were very powerful in Ohio going to George W. Bush in 2004, which won him re-election. The insipid antics of the ladies of Code Pink had a similar effect on mainstream America in the debate over the Iraq War. The drum circles in Madison, Wisconsin became an ongoing joke in the media. And today, tattooed kids dressing like zombies on Wall Street- and camping out on Frank Ogawa Plaza- are not inviting to the vast majority of Americans. In fact it alienates them.

This is not the way forward!

I am not sitting on the sidelines throwing stones, and I reject quite strongly the suggestion that I have been "abusive." To me, the line is very clear. Ideas and actions are fair game for criticism, but I do not criticize people personally. I at no time impugned Mr. Wright as a person or his reputation or character. I did call his idea "dopey," which I think it is, and I have never heard anyone this side of Leave it to Beaver object to "dopey" before. Do you really want to so narrowly restrict language?

Kwan, you erred in your criticism that while I acknowledge that professional campaigns I have worked on have wanted for alternative voices, which I readily agree has been the case, that is VERY different from a social movement that works outside professional political hierarchy. To that, I again suggest that a cursory History lesson would show Mr. Wright and anyone else, that people of color and immigrants have been very successful with social movements in this country. The March on Washington, undeniably America's most famous and successful social movement event was, of course, organized and attended by African Americans. The United Farm Workers movement, while not as fruitful in result, was nevertheless an important movement. This underscores my earlier point that I believe that change- real change not the tepid bullshit we have been sold by Barack Obama- will not come through electoral politics. It will only come through social movement, and it is to that end that I concentrate and agitate. And that end, clearly, is not helped by people camping out and banging drums on Wall Street or Frank Ogawa Plaza. That end is achieved by boycott, as was the case in Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955, which was the kickstart for the Civil Rights movement. It is, as it always is, about the money.

If you want robust debate, something I hope you will agree that we all need in order to hone our ideas, our rhetoric and our outcomes, then I think we need not to be overly sensitive or protectionist, which the trap that leftist movements have always been prone too. If you are going to object to so mild a term as "dopey," then you are essentially taking debate off the table and closing off your site to only those who agree with you. If all you want is an echo chamber, then that is exactly how you achieve orthodoxy.

Until we turn this into an actual movment by opening the doors to debate and expanded participation across all sectors of society, we will not only remain on the fringe of American political debate but you will watch helplessly in your zombie costumes from your drum circles as the growing disorganized and ostracized discontent scares the American mainstream into the waiting arms of authoritarianism.

That is exactly how we got Richard Nixon.

Murray, this might seem like an obvious question, but have you made any attempt to reach out to the organizers of O/O, or speak at the General Assembly?

btw, the Occupy protests have a 54% approval rating, according to Time magazine, which is twice that of the tea Party. so it appears your Nixon analogy may be off-base.

@Monica,

You didn't find anything abusive about the post? Cool, but a lot of folks did and it's our responsbility to create a space where everyone is free to express their opinion. And while I respect your view of the folks downtown I have to ask how many times you've actually been down there and talked to people? I've been downtown all four days and can report that there are wide range of folks there, the full time activists and those just "hanging out", yes, but also folks from every demographic from unemployed and homeless to professionals stopping by to show support on their breaks or drop of supplies. It's far from perfect and there are some sensational aspects, but don't knock it till you've tried it. 

And I hear you on the us vs them mentality and the need to focus on shared economic interests, that's a lot of people's end goal. But the question is how, specifically, do we get there. Economic oppression affects communities in different ways, many POC's and poor folks have been catching it way before the occupy wall street movement and to ignore the individual experiences of these communities in a rush to create a shared experience isn't the way to create long lasting unity.

@Murray 

Thanks for responding. And I hope you understand the major thing I, and others, had issue with wasn't the content of your post but the tone. It was written in a way that came off as patronizing and holier than thou. The critique of Richard's article or the movement would have been a lot more well recieved if it didn't include the unnecesary name calling. Perhaps it's a case of my southern gentleman upbringing, but I believe there are certain ways you should approach a situation if you want to be heard. If I express a heartfelt grievance and you, someone I've never met, responds with "that's dopey, you're being delusional" and then launch into a diatribe without even ackowlegding my point of view, guess what-I'm not going to be having a conversation with you for very long. That's a basic principle of facilitating any successful meeting/discussion: respect other people's opinions. And while we both agree that there's a lot to be done quickly. Running roughshod over other's views is a quick way to shut down discussion.

Regarding inclusions in social movements, the one's you're mentioning were largely organized by poc's so their issues were baked in from the beginning, and did in fact include discussions around power and racial dynamics within the ranks. The Occupy Oakland/Wallstreet movement doesn't have that same initial diversity and while folks are working to come to a consensus, it's just that: work. It's not a simple as put race, gender, class aside and join the collective fight. Collective agendas are created by accepting diverse voices, not telling them to shut up and follow the program.

And again, while these conversations on OL are welcome and valuable, it's important to get out there 1st hand and talk with folks. Just like the tone of your conversation changed and your critique became more nuanced after it was challenged here, talking to folks face to face can take help take the edge off hopefully lead to more productive conversations. And be sure to talk to some of the organizers in the general assembly in addition to the folks in zombie costumes.

i thought the suits who normally occupy Wall St. were the real zombies.

Kwan,

Exactly, who are these lots of people. Quantify. Quantify. Quantify. You indicated that "dopey" and "self important" as abusive. I just don't see it. It is that type of censoring which makes me wonder if this rag has any value. I think it is good to have a rag that is Oaklandcentric but from what I can tell most of the contributers lean so far to the left they can not find the center and want nothing to do with anyone who proposes a more balanced and measured approach. If one does not agree with the left leaning politics of the writers they are persona non grata.     

I observed the OO mvmt for a couple of days. I am not impressed. My co-workers and I laughed about it. 

Monica, debate is the opposite of censoring. This is not censoring.

When an individual wants to ban a person for the use of words dopey and self important, then you are essentially curbing free speech for words which are about as offensive as apple pie, mom and baseball.  

Monica, ouch!

Monica,

This is in no way curbing free speech. This is setting a standard for civil discourse. And we welcome that from all points of view. Anyone is welcome to write in and discuss issues on the site, if you have a more centrist view you'd like to express, by all means submit an article we invite others to do the same.

And like I said before, the fact that you weren't offended doesn't change the fact that other people were and as the owners of the site we have to address it. Community voices are a place to publish your opinion, but we have to be sensitive to other people's feelings when we're publishing work. Name calling isn't the way to form bonds around issues. 

Monica,

This is in no way curbing free speech. This is setting a standard for civil discourse. And we welcome that from all points of view. Anyone is welcome to write in and discuss issues on the site, if you have a more centrist view you'd like to express, by all means submit an article we invite others to do the same.

And like I said before, the fact that you weren't offended doesn't change the fact that other people were and as the owners of the site we have to address it. Community voices are a place to publish your opinion, but we have to be sensitive to other people's feelings when we're publishing work. Name calling isn't the way to form bonds around issues. 

If you aren't already a member, I suggest membership in the American Family Association. They are huge fans of banning "offensive material."

If you want to ban, then I also suggest you curb/edit comments from Eric and others who call enlightened black/brown individuals who disagree with their point of view as self haters. You can't have it both ways. If you want to want to create community then you need to police the comments as well.

I have not re-read the article in some time but I am pretty sure Murray called  the IDEA dopey not the person and that is a very important distinction. Not every action requires a response especially a draconian response such as banning an individual. Really, how often does Murray contribute and how many people comment on the substance of his contributions.

Frankly, when I read the piece, I liked it and did not see the need to comment until you and Susan took offense to mom, baseball and apple pie. 

(taking the high road here) Let's consider that these dopey alternative non-movements are now taking place in 500 cities around the world.

oh, and here's the audio from Danny Glover's speech yesterday: http://swift.fm/mrdaveyd/swift/147903/

@Monica,

You have a point about better moderation of the comments. We want folks to be able to express their oppinions without the name calling. And again, the site should be an open forum. But a respectful one.

Murray,

I think you've missed a distinction or two that make the various Occupy movements somewhat different from other recent demonstrations. (And, I'll say right off the top that you might consider Googling 'Zombiecon' for an explanation of why there were zombies on Wall Street.)

Most demonstrations (or, at least the ones I've been part of in the last ten years) are very brief. They're a gathering + a speech or two + a planned march. As opportunites to foment infrastructural recruiting for change-oriented organizations, they don't work very well, because the whole thing lasts only a few hours. IMO, march-based demonstrations are a huge missed recruitment opportunity.

As we've already seen, Occupy Wall Street organizers are taking a different approach, and this is being repeated with modifications all over the country. The Occupy model combines public spectacle + collective decision making + teach-ins in a way that hasn't been seen in a while at such a large scale. The model (aided by boneheads in the NYPD) has been effective so far in securing loads of press attention.

The occupation of various squares and parks isn't IMO going to immediately affect any specific piece of legislation or policy. On that point I agree with you. But, I think the Occupy encampment strategy, vs a march or picket strategy, is allowing for deeper networking, more thorough teach-ins, and more pervasive structrual organizing of a new network of activists that will come away from this project energized and connected in a way they weren't before. How loosely or tightly that national network will be remains to be seen.

If you look at the Occupy project as a short term effort to effect a particular policy change, then yeah, you'll probably see a self-defeating exercise.  But, if you look at it as an incubator meant to organize and empower the participants, then whether the 1% listens isn't the point. Not immediately. The point is more to replace vague feelings of angst, impotence, or anger with a sense of directed action, recruiting new blood into various interconnected cells, and plan for the future.

It's cynical to see only gutter punks and hippies in these kinds of demonstrations. Maybe they stand out simply because they, well, stand out in a crowd. If you don't also see the first-time demonstrators, the curious, and the usually-disaffected (none of them bored!), then you're missing a big piece of this picture.

Kwan,

Thank you.

speaking of not having it both ways, monica, does this mean you will refrain from personal insults in your comments from now on? btw, i have never disagreed with your right to disagree with me (or anyone else) on an ideological basis, it's just that you seem to be unable to do it without resorting to name calling, which undercuts whatever valid points you might otherwise make. and now you wanna get all self-righteous and invoke mom, baseball and apple pie and censorship? seems like a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Matt,

I admire your optimism, but I don't share it because it's just not true that "The Occupy model combines public spectacle + collective decision making + teach-ins in a way that hasn't been seen in a while at such a large scale." Those are pro forma elements of the 60's model turned protest into flowers in the gun barrells pantomime that has gotten us all nowhere. What is equally pro forma is that these various voices turn into factions who create friction amongst themselves and invariably end up dissolving the movement. The same will happen on Wall Street, you can bet on it. Our only hope is that the spark will lite a bigger flame before it flickers out. I don't know if you've ever been a part of a "collective decision making" meeting, but they invariable turn into clusterfucks around ancillary issues, usually from people trying to attach their issue to the movement.

I was involved in an early protest effort against the Iraq War in Berkeley, for example, and that's exactly what they did- the teach-in and the collective decision making meetings, which disintegrated into a squabble about Palestinian statehood. The whole effort fell apart, as they always do.

You are spot on, however, in suggesting that all of these efforts are usually missed opportunities for recruitment for a bigger and more useful effort. But those have yet to be realized. Up to now, people have had the essential choice of joining useless street demonstrations or useless professional political campaigns who try to latch onto them without committing to them. Barack Obama trying to slip his foot into the Occupy bed is only the latest example. No doubt his people will be scouring the protest grounds to shake loose whatever change they can.

Until people start getting more imaginative than just re-staging the exhausted hippie movement debacles of the 60's, with all the "teach-in" and hackneyed Labor chanting trappings, and figure out that it's always about the money, not the street theater, income disequity will continue widen, banks will continue to help themselves to the taxpayers bank account and the status-quo will continue to lord over us all.

Kwan,
Once again, I must point out that you have again said that "name calling" was your objection to my piece. There was no "name calling," or anything "disrespectful." In another of your responses you said your objection was not to content but "tone." The truth you need to admit is that what you really objected to is my voice and my perspective, and you are using flimsy excuses to express that. If there are in fact "others" who felt the same way, then the same is true of them. There was nothing offensive in my piece.

The clouds are gathering over our heads, I think we can all see that. Free speech isn't always agreeable, Kwan, and a free space is neither pretty nor harmonious. In a free space, ideas and perspectives need to be open to criticism, and should be defended. That his how ideas are tested and galvanized. But the minute you start obejcting to voices you don't like and moaning about "name calling" and "disrespect" that isn't there- simply being offended by criticism- is the moment you travel down the well beaten path of censorship that has never served anyone, particularly the censors themselves.

Eric,

I would appreciate it if you would not use "racist statements" as the pot calling the kettle black. For the record, I have never used a personal insult and I have never called one a self hater as you and some of your ilk have. Like Quan, I don't forget.

I may have used some questionable by OL's "mom, apple pie, and baseball standard" language, but I never insult anyone because I think any point is lost if you start attacking the person. But when it comes to idiotic points, we should attack them everyday, allday.    

monica, it is straight-up untruthful to say you have never lobbed a personal insult at me.

in fact there are many threads you have posted on filled with them. if your memory is so good, how come you dont remember the recent thread (Oct. 4) when you called me, in order, an "incompetent boob," a "chowderhead" and "one of those children left behind and failed basic reading comprehesion" (sic -- the incorrect grammar and spelling is both amusing and ironic considering the context). you also made a sexually-inappropriate comment which i ignored.

here's the link, just in case you 'forgot': http://oaklandlocal.com/posts/2011/10/city-council-tonight-and-juvenile-curfew-ignacio-de-la-fuente-community-voices

sorry, but this goes farther than just questionable language, it's truly pathological to say "i never insult anyone" when there's recent evidence that you have done exactly that. and that's just one thread. i dont have the patience to catalog every time you have felt the need to attack me personally and uneccesarily, but generally people with well-reasoned arguments don't need to stoop that low.

speaking of which, btw, the saying "pot calling the kettle black" isn't inherently racist by any means whatsoever. if it was, than anything with the word "black" in it would be racist, from black tie to black box to blackout. it's laughable to even suggest that context for a fairly innocuous coloquialism.

monica, i'm not suggesting you be censored or banned--just that you grow up a bit and be civil from now on.

However, i'm not trying to hijack this thread, which has brought out an interesting discussion, even if some of the points made are way off base. i dont think pessimism serves movement-building particularly well. and i agree with matt that what we are seeing is a different type of grassroots dynamic which is easy for some to criticize, perhaps, but harder to qualify.

Eric,

Frankly, I find your lack of capitalization annoying. It most often shows up in response to something I wrote. You have the decency to address Murray as Murray, and except for one instance,  I am "monica." I don't plan to accord you much respect until you show me some. I have asked you about it before and yet you persist. Chowderhead and child left behind are just descriptive terms.

"i dont have the patience to catalog every time you have felt the need to attack me personally and uneccesarily, but generally people with well-reasoned arguments don't need to stoop that low.

it's laughable to even suggest that context for a fairly innocuous coloquialism.

speaking of which, btw, the saying "pot calling the kettle black" isn't inherently racist by any means whatsoever. if it was..."

The word is unnecessarily not "uneccesarily." It is also, if it were, not "If it was" and colloquialism, not "coloquialism." Looks like I am not the only person who types quickly and misses a letter. I am not sure what your excuse is for "If it was." 

The pot calling the kettle black was a toss away, old reference to Omarosa from The Apprentice. I was just curious to see if you would bite.  

Finally, I think I know the line you ignored. The line comes direct from whatever program I was listening to at the time. I just don't recall the name. 

Likewise, I am not suggesting someone ban you, but it would be nice if you would address me properly, stopped telling others what they need to back comments with stats - we are not reporters and comments are not journalist contributions, show some respect for other ideas, etc....

whatever. stop hating and join the human race.

(edit: to clarify, "join the human race" is a John Lennon reference, from his humanity-affirming song "Instant Karma" -- not intended to imply that somehow Monica is less than human. obviously it was taken the wrong way. But i think the reference is entirely relevant here because in many ways, accepting and embracing humanity are what the Occupy movements are all about. We can't do that if we are not in solidarity. And, we can't do that if we don't face the reality of the have-nots, i.e., the poor, the disenfranchised, the homeless, the marginalized, etc., on whose backs corporate wealth was built.)

eric it is you who needs to stop hating. when you join the human race and admit you have been both disrespectful and demeaning and accord me the same respect you are willing to show Kwan and Murray, I will accord you some respect. until then, I will treat you like the subhuman you are. 

" I am not suggesting someone ban you"

"If you want to ban, then I also suggest you curb/edit comments from Eric"

you completely contradict yourself here. sorry, but i can't respect that. i do, however, give your comments a level of courtesy you aren't willing to extend to mine, upholding your right to express your own opinion without suggesting censorship based on ideology (or, for that matter, insults and untruthful statements). still, it's clear that a double standard exists here.

"Chowderhead and child left behind are just descriptive terms."

sure, if you come from an abusive family.

"I was just curious to see if you would bite. "

well, at least now you admit you've been trying to bait me. but black people playing the race card--accusing others of racism--in situations where it's clearly not warranted does a disservice to the very real, actual instances of racism which do happen. You should take yourself a little more seriously.

You've also strayed pretty far off-topic, getting caught up in petty name-calling (and denials of the same) rather than debate or discuss the relevant issues at hand, such as whether Occupy Oakland is a return to a '60s ethos, or whether it represents a new dynamic for localized organizing and global movement-building.

#occupyyourownmind.

Eric,

Those statements are far from contradictory. Read the context of the statements. The point of the latter statement was that Kwan simply needs to be consistent; I did not suggest that you be banned. (By the way, it was Kwan and Susan who caused this digression. One if not both could have sent Murray an email to address "language" issues.) 

Yes, accusing others of racism where not warranted is a disservice. I am not going back through the threads, but I am sure I made this point and thought  (even if I did not respond), at least once, you were singled out unfairly about a downtown club. We do just fine, maybe you should take yourself less seriously - shake your hand like the black folk.

As to this movement, it lacks any clear focus. As Danny Glover said, the jury is still out on this movement. Too many factions with too many objectives and no leaders.

Who is supposed to be in solidarity? And as long as the message seems to demonize WS and coporations it is difficult for me to see the point. Corporations have done things that have been good or at the least allowed people to do things they want to do - Knight grant money did not grow on trees.

"I did not suggest that you be banned."

" I am not suggesting someone ban you"

""If you want to ban, then I also suggest you curb/edit comments from Eric""

so, Monica, did someone other than you type those keystrokes? Was your account hacked? do you have a split personality? an evil twin? if none of those answers are correct, yes, you have contradicted yourself.

I have to wonder, why put my name into it in the first place? That takes deliberate intent. Couldn't you make that point without mentioning me? Your comments to me were far worse than Murray's comments which both Kwan and Susan took offense to, btw. So any policy which involved disallowing personal insults would certainly make many of your comments directed at me clear violations of this policy.

And, really, why even go there? How does questioning a seasoned journalist's reading comprehension ability make your argument any more valid if it can't stand on its own merits? How does falsely claiming racism, then trying to play it off as a joke advance social progress for African Americans?

As a writer, you do have to have a thick skin sometimes, because people think they know you personally, and also think that if they disagree with something you wrote, they can call you every name in the book, bait you with straw-man arguments, and they feign ignorance of their actions if you call them out for hypocrisy. I get that. Par for the course, right?

But there is simply no context in which unnecessary sexual references directed at a journalist are appropriate for making a valid argument. Again, why go there? What does that add to the discussion? besides a level of puerility, that is.

But what it really comes down to, once we get past the juvenile name-calling and stalker-like obsessive fixation, is this: what is, exactly, your argument?

"Corporations have done things that have been good"

No further comment.

Some random thoughts:

1) Honey, I get it; you want me to discuss a topic that you have no interest in discussing. You realize that my statement about banning was not meant with the intent on banning any individual but that the policing of comments should be in both the story and comments particularly if it s going to apply to the story. You also know that Kwan agreed with my statement for he is your ABC.  

2) I am glad you agree that "Corporations have done things that are good." It is nice of you to recognize that Yahoo, Google, Apple, LeapFrog, Clorox, Microsoft etc are not entirely bad.

Here is the thing, you can not tell me all corporations are bad but when you sit there and demonize all corporations, I am not going to give your argument much weight. Have you ever worked for Yahoo? Don't you think individuals are partially responsible for current foreclosure crisis? Should individuals have taken on debt that they could not repay when the interest rate reset?

3) Call me old-fashioned but journalist should not be commenting. Is journalist commenting something new being taught at Mizzou, Columbia and Medil? You might well be a journalist but I am not sure how competent you are. You lose all of your journalistic integrity and objectivity when you start injecting your opinion and beliefs and side with one side. I would be happy if you just wrote your piece, let the readers comment and never said a another word. But you insist on stirring the pot - how many seasoned journalist do you see stirring the pot. By the way, when you insert your opinions in the comments, you lose the journalist tag. You become part of the hoi polloi. Call me old-fashioned but journalist do not comment. And quite frankly, on a story you did not author, the journalist tag does not apply.

And what the heck is this racism crap that you keep writing about?

Monica, i have to disagree with almost everything you're saying, sorry. and let's try to stay on-topic here and not veer into sideline tangents. if you want to have a reality-based discussion about the Occupy movements, fine. demonizing corporations, you say? funny, i just saw a stat that in the US, CEO pay to average worker pay is 475:1, compared to 11:1 in Japan.does that shock you? it should.

that's what these movements are about, addressing economic inequality which is the result of corporate greed. you can choose to ignore it, but i don't hear much talk about corporate compassion. There is clearly a need for reform, since the middle class has been eroded and more people than ever are without a safety net. #realtalk.

I have heard the a number between 250: to 500:1. So am I shocked no. But also keep in mind most CEOs receive rather generous stock packages which boost their income significantly. I believe Carol Bartz only took home a $1 million in salary, which by itself was probably 11x the average Yahoo employee compensation. Incentive bonuses and stock madeup the bulk of her compensation and that is the same of most corporate executives. If stock awards were widely disseminated throughout the organization than employees could do equally well.  

Should teachers be paid more - probably, but we can't have both higher paid teachers and smaller schools. Does Buffett have a lower tax rate than his secretary more than likely but it has more to do with his source of income than his wealth. Yeah, there have been changes to the tax code that hurt the middle class but those of us in the middle also need to make the hard choices and do a better job saving and investing.

we can't have both higher paid teachers and smaller schools

to quote Barack Obama, "yes, we can." One suggestion: if CEO's earning over $10m annually kicked back 10% of their compensation to a public education fund, teachers wouldnt have to buy classroom materials out of their own pockets.

What you need is a common local enemy. I'll give you one.

As someone who doesn't think the 1% and capitalism are the root of all evil  that O/O and probably most of the posters here believe except Monica, I'm fine with O/O imploding.

If Scott Johnson's piece in the Trib tonight is even partly accurate, O/O is going from Woodstock to Altamont Pass in record time.

I particularly get a chuckle from participants tweeting about economic justice on their 500 dollar Iphones made in Taiwan after Apple moved its manufacturing offshore some years ago.

While Murray's sense of humor is offensive, when he stops trying to be sarcastic, you might learn a few things from him. But then, I hope you don't.

-len raphael, temescal

You know those jobs you want in Oakland? You're going to need some of those 1 percenters like the late Steve Jobs to create them here. He did export a lot of jobs to low wage countries, but he also created hecka good paying jobs here.

Or are you planning on Fed, State, and local government creating the jobs so successfully as they did in Greece  over the last two decades?

How about we all have lunch?  downtown? Next week?

One more piece of unwanted, gratuitous advice:

As the personal security situation as O/O appears to be moving from Woodstock to Altamont at internet speed, something bad could easily happen there.  As much as I would like to see Quan, Segal, Kaplan get egg on their faces, besides being a tragedy for anyone injured, it would be another stain on Oakland's face. Plus it would cost the City very big bucks because it is very clearly documented that our officials encouraged and supported O/O very differently from NYC and SF.

The best thing that could happen for both Oakland and you O/O boosters is to provoke OPD into clearing the encampment by doing something harmless but scary to the cops.

Then you could get all the publicity of the po protecting the 1% from the power of the people. Hopefully a few cops will do something slightly stupid give you photo ops of blood streaming out of noses. Nothing disabling but lots of blood.

You can declare victory and leave before one of your camp followers rapes or injures someone there.

The city pays a few thousand bucks to settle brutality charges.

A win win situation.

-len raphael

temescal

len, i don't think your advice is gratuitous at all. you raise some good points which speak to some of the tougher questions, and should be part of a deeper conversation on these issues.

disagree that it's in anyone's best interests to provoke violence, however.

just read the trib article (here's the link btw: http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19150648). i think it can be taken in a number of ways: 1) that gathering up homeless people along with activists does not in and of itself resolve the issues of homeless folks, such as mental illness; 2) that O/O organizers are attempting to apply internal conflict resolution measures; and 3) that it's easy for outsiders and media to project scenarios which may or may not come to fruition onto this situation.

Yesterday, i spoke at length with a Chron reporter who worried that "this can only end badly" -however, this was followed by a constructive discussion with former black panther and labor organizer David Hilliard who bluntly told the camp they needed a more concrete organizational structure. in a Q&A, Hilliard was asked about best practices for internal conflict resolution, so it's not like folks aren't making an effort. As the Trib's Johnson himself noted (in the comments section), "The article explicitly addresses how people are using their "positive energy" to solve problems in new ways, and what that means for this movement."

If people have a different take-home point--i.e. an Altamont analogy--that may say more about where they are coming from than what's actually happening. And certainly,media spin has had an impact on perception. That said, there's no denying the existance of some tension among the encampment. But when you think about it, there's probably less overall tension than in a typical homeless shelter, which doesn't offer workshops, trainings, a film, lecture and live music series, a library, daycare center, etc.

I don't know how this will end, and i'm hesitant to make any predictions. I will say that it's been fairly surreal to watch the entire thing unfold.

A lot to respond to in this thread so as far as the initial topic I'm with Susan, do folks want to meet sometime next week and talk? I think everyone's making some valid points and it could be useful to talk face to face. Anyone interested? #occupylunchsummit  

sure, why not?