Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy Oakland: THEY DID IT!!! Port is SHUT DOWN. Updates. (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My Question is (5+ / 0-)

    Why are the Ports suddenly the Nexus of OWS? When was the vote on that being the next phase? Why the Ports instead of the Lexus dealerships, or the Louis Vuitton stores, or private Learjet airports?

    By concentrating on the Ports, are we not doing Wall Street and the pro-1% people a favor? We're creating media narratives of OWS vs the Unions and Workers, we're arguing among ourselves, and we're hardly inconveniencing the 1% which stays as far from the dirty work as possible. What happened to, you know, WALL STREET? The policies which send US money out and bring cheap, foreign goods in need changing, but the thousands of blue collar workers at the ports aren't going to change that.

    According to the TeaBaggers, the wrong side won the Civil War. Kinda says it all.

    by Beomoose on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:17:27 PM PST

    •  Not just wall st, but any financial center (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beomoose, SaoMagnifico, jpmassar, elwior

      or neighborhoods, posh country clubs, etc...real 1% hangouts. I don't consider ports, the workers there or the businesses using them heavily to be a large part of the problem.

      Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:25:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Completely agreed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b

      The ports are a bizarre target for this movement. The optics of this are unhelpful. I'm all for picketing in front of banks, I'm all for supporting workers' strikes when conditions are unfair, I'm all for the "move your money" initiative, I'm all for boycotts, I'm all for writing Congress. But shutting down ports? Come on, people work there. People who need the money. People who were supposed to be part of this, before it morphed into what it seems to be today.

      Democrat, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:59:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And where do you think the labor movement came (4+ / 0-)


        People striking where they needed the money. People striking hard jobs. Gritty jobs. Coal mines. Factories. People the bosses counted on not being able to afford the hit--who couldn't afford the hit--who took the hit anyway, because in their masses, in solidarity, they were able to hit the bosses.

        The union movement didn't come from picketing the stock market (though that's been a great modern addition). It came from striking down at the roots, where the rich get their money by siphoning it off from the people who work to create it.

        Read that letter from the drivers again. Their work conditions are deplorable. Their pay is deplorable. They know what they're doing. Don't concern troll them.

        •  Those are FOUR people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm entirely sympathetic to their situation. But a bunch of activists - who are predominantly middle-class urbanites, mind you - don't get to invade working-class people's workplaces and shut the place down so they don't get paid on the say-so of four truckers who signed a letter.

          Democrat, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:49:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They're clearly not even close to being alone. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Agathena, elwior

            And your concerns remain ahistorical; there never would have been a labor movement (a weekend, minimum wage, anything) if your concerns had ruled.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site