Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy Seattle - Why We Shut Down The Port Part III (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a perfectly awful idea. The diarist appears (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril
    Hidden by:
    AoT

    to cite three reasons for the action.  

    First, "We're shutting down these ports because of the union busting and attacks on the working class by the 1%: the firing of Port truckers organizing at SSA terminals in LA; the attempt to rupture ILWU union jurisdiction in Longview, WA by EGT. "  How can shutting down the ports be expected to aid the lives of truckers at the port or members of the ILWU?  Do they not need the day's work?  Do we have concrete information as to the extent of interest held in the ports by the wealthiest Americans who make up the 1%?  Do members of the 1% control the ports?  If not, shutting down the ports will accomplish nothing useful concerning the 1%.

    Second reason: police used force, allegedly excessive force, against protestors in some other situations.  How can shutting down the ports be expected to discourage or diminish the use of force by police?

    Third, "So, we shut down the port because you can't evict an idea."  That makes no sense.  You can't catch helium in a wheelbarrow or roller skate in a buffalo herd, either, but that does not support shutting down the ports.

    Overall, this diary suggests that the intent is nothing more than to create a disturbance sufficient to provoke a police response, with the hope that it will be violent.

    •  I doubt very much whether JustJennifer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JustJennifer

      has "hope" that the police response will be violent, given that it will be her body, and those of her friends, on the line.

      Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 06:28:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  what a fallacious conclusion. protests are always (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JustJennifer

      designed to provoke a response. The hoped for response is that the government will attend to the grievances you are redressing. Any other response is the undesired choice of the powers that be. If they choose violence it is not the fault of the protesters.

      Give me a break.

      I'm guessing you'd argue that a women wearing attire you deem to be too revealing is provoking a rape.

      Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

      by UnaSpenser on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 08:54:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JustJennifer

      The Port of Seattle's CEO makes $366,000 in base salary. That's firmly in 1% territory. Moreover, much of the actual land and equipment at the Port of Seattle is owned by subsidiaries of all those well-hated banks democrats like to call the tools and/or owners of the GOP.

      You don't have to dig too deep to find reasons for this...

    •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

      That is incorrect.

      Sorry I ducked out yesterday - I had to go to GA.

      This country has a long and rich history with strikes,  commerce interruption, and civil disobedience.   We are merely participating in that today.   We are never looking for a police response.  

      Books are trash. Corporations are people. Tents are terrorism. Pepper spray soon to be declared a vegetable.

      by JustJennifer on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:11:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site