Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy Oakland Declares Love on Oakland. (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What do you suggest? (4+ / 0-)

    Burning all the flags secretly indoors in a 10 square mile radius before any protest?

    Shooting anyone who looks like he might be pulling out a flag and a lighter?

    Simply going home and surrendering because otherwise someone, at some point, related to Occupy or not, might do something that the media will play up as why protesters are evil incarnate?

    The people who burn flags burn them because they get their jollies knowing that people will get really upset about it.  There's nothing you, or I, or Occupy, or anyone else can do about it.

    •  We can disavow them. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, mrsgoo, erush1345, ctami, hooper, JayRaye

      I don't see any reason to alienate people by burning flags. After all, it's our flag too.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 07:42:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't either. (5+ / 0-)

        But it doesn't matter what we think.  Or what actions we disavow.

        They're going to do it precisely because it makes people upset, and they don't care about alienating people.  

        It's like Republicans.  They are not susceptible to reason.  They adopt positions that they disavowed years ago simply because Democrats now support those positions.  And so likewise the people whose goal it is to upset people and cause disarray and chaos do whatever it is that will upset people.

        •  Well, "They" that burn flags must not be allowed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, elwior, hooper, JayRaye

          to define Occupy to the rest of the world. Somebody needs to get them a bunch of those flags with the corporate logos instead of stars. I would burn that myself.

          And so likewise the people whose goal it is to upset people and cause disarray and chaos do whatever it is that will upset people.
          I don't want those people co-opting the movement. I just do not.

          "We're here to start a dialog, nothing more. We keep quiet and let the press, the politicians, and the Wall Streeters hang themselves." h/t .- pistols at dawn. I'm a Sacramento/San Joaquin Kossack. Are You?

          by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:11:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allowed? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, alizard, JayRaye

            There's no issue of "allowing" here.  Occupy isn't in much of a position to define itself for the rest of the world.  The media are going to do that, and it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what Occupy does.  

            Thousands of people can show up at an Occupy event and demonstrate peacefully, but if someone should come to the general area and throw a rock, the media will report, "Occupy Demostration Turns Violent."  The media are simply doing their job -- discrediting a popular movement for the benefit of their corporate advertisers and the powers-that-be.  

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:54:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why can't it define itself? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, elwior, JayRaye

              It can certainly influence the media coverage by approaching it with the idea that it will be slanted from the get-go, and try to overcome that with positive media.

              Unless Occupy doesn't really care about the image people have of it. Some in OO have told me, in response to concerns about diversity of tactics, that "image isn't everything."

              •  No, it can't. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard, JayRaye, jpmassar, AoT

                What you are suggesting would require Occupy to be able to exercise total control over every single person who attends an Occupy event.  That's impossible.  In addition, it would require Occupy to be able to keep people unaffiliated with the Occupy movement from claiming to act in Occupy's name.  That's also impossible.  What's needed here is for the media to show some responsibility, which isn't going to happen in all likelihood.  

                Occupy is upsetting to established power, in both its corporate and political incarnations.  Such a movement is going to be maligned from many sides.  Even on this site, which claims to be progressive, there are people expressing extreme antipathy for the Occupy movement, because they find it insufficiently loyal either to the president, or to the Democratic Party, or to whomever.  So Occupy is going to get a lot of bad press, and there isn't a whole lot it can do to change that.  

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:11:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  GAs could totally disavow violence, stating that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jpmassar, ctami

                  those that engage in it are not part of Occupy.  

                  I think that's been done in NY and Boston, not sure about Oakland.  What I read is people violence ("they started it" kind of stuff) but that could be only here, I don't know.

                •  So Occupy is powerless? (0+ / 0-)

                  All the bad press can only be mitigated through increased responsibility of the media?

                  Sure, the "mainstream" press are going to get their accounts from the police blotter, and so will most likely reflect the police POV. But the alternative press here in the Bay Area has actually presented a fairly balanced portrayal of Occupy Oakland. What's wrong with trying to cultivate that more, especially given all the bad PR OO has gotten lately?

                  Nobody is saying that Occupy has to "exercise total control" over participants; that would indeed be impossible in a movement which has anarchist roots. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done.

                  And people here on DK expressing doubts about Occupy are, I think, more concerned about violence in the protests rather than Occupy failing to meet some fealty test to Obama and/or the Democratic Party. The former is certainly the case with myself and other Oakland residents I've talked to, but YMMV.

                  •  I'd say there's two groups who are against (0+ / 0-)

                    Occupy.  One is the group you mention.  They have doubts, not just about the violence, but about the people involved, etc.  There is most certainly another group, far less vocal now than at the outset of the movement, that is very much against occupy because they aren't going about change the right way, which is to vote harder and be univocal in our support of the president.  The first group is generally reasonable, although some act trollish at times, but lots of people do that myself included.  The second really is pointless to engage with.

                    I don't think the violence is necessarily the issue about 90% of the time, mostly because a good percentage of the people I've seen fretting about it never supported occupy and have just jumped on the band wagon.  Not that it isn't a valid problem, but it's really frustrating to have people who told me OWS would fail since before it even started try to give me advice about how we're doing it wrong.

                    There are of course a lot of people who have genuine concerns about strategy and tactics.  What frustrates me is when that turns into "I can't support this movement because I think your strategy and tactics will probably fail."  If you don't want to support tactics because they are wrong, like in the case of violence, that's one thing, but if you just don;t like how we're going about it but support the same goals then I don't need to hear about how we're going to fail.

                    Sorry for the ramble, it's really not aimed at you specifically, it just kind of came out here.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:51:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  If the Democratic Party has consistently (0+ / 0-)

                failed to define itself under media attack then why would we expect Occupy to fare any different?

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:54:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because Occupy (0+ / 0-)

                  is not the Democratic Party. They are two different things.

                  All "media" is not the same, just as all parties and movements are not the same. The Democratic Party has had a string of leaders who have been bad at messaging. Because of the very nature of the party, Democrats are not consistent in messaging like lock-step Republicans are (besides the fact that Repugs own their own TV network.) But I would argue that Dems are getting better at it, especially as the presidential campaign continues. It remains to be seen if Occupy will get better at it.

                  Maybe Occupy doesn't care about spreading their message if all they are going to do is throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, the big, bad media misrepresented us again. That really sucks, but we can't do anything about it."

                  •  The media's job is to misrepresent people (0+ / 0-)

                    in what ever way sells the most papers or gets enough viewers.  The point was that having people in charge or even just in charge of PR doesn't make a damn difference, the media just makes shit up, unless you're a company, then you get a fair say every time.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:03:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Got it (0+ / 0-)

                      As someone who has worked in media for 20 years, I'm glad to finally know what my job entails.

                      •  I don't know about your job specifically (0+ / 0-)

                        but if you think the media as an institution functions otherwise then you keep on believing that, I know what I see.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:33:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  To be clear, I don't think it's something you (0+ / 0-)

                        as an individual do, or really any specific individual, with some exceptions.  It's a result of the media as an institution.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:43:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  mrsgoo, If you don't want the few disrupters at OO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            to define the many, here is what you can do: Write to media and tell them to report the Whole Story. For example, when they report "30 arrested" remind them that 10,000 protesters marched peacefully. Wringing your hands over the actions of a few will get you no where. Every mass movement is going to have these bad elements on the fringes. Some will even be paid to go in and disrupt the movement.

            And again you might point out that the ReThugs also have their own bad actors. Like the White Supremist currently being embraced at the Conservative Conf. Perhaps, the media should use this INVITED racists to define the Republican Party. I watched news on NBC. All about the main candidates, & not a word about the Racists welcomed, along with them, at that conference.

            This was an exclusive, invitation only, Conference. OO is an open mass protest movement.

            OO can call for peaceful protest, which they do. The main body of the march can move away from the disrupters, which they do. But OO cannot control the media. Perhaps the hand wringers would do better to speak truth to power (the media) rather than blasting the brave demonstrators who are out there on our behalf.

            If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Women

            by JayRaye on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 07:59:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  disavowing them will make little difference (6+ / 0-)

        i mean, if you find it important for your own reasons to do so then by all means do so, but it won't disrupt the media attacks.

        •  I know. I just hate handing them the ammunition. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, elwior, hooper, JayRaye

          When I'm trying to convince our friends and acquaintances that Occupy has a real message and sell them on how we need to do things differently, it's really hard when they see folks burning flags. And those folks are 50+ they just don't take kindly to those images.

          "We're here to start a dialog, nothing more. We keep quiet and let the press, the politicians, and the Wall Streeters hang themselves." h/t .- pistols at dawn. I'm a Sacramento/San Joaquin Kossack. Are You?

          by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:16:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i understand (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, mrsgoo, elwior, alizard, JayRaye

            i'm just not sure that it matters whether any flags are ever burned, the claims will be there regardless, and people prepped to believe it will believe it if it comes from the usual sources of agitprop.

            i think it's a dumb symbolic action, and wish people doing anything would think through the purposes and intended consequences of their actions before they do them, but i'm not sure the 50+ YO folks reading about it in the papers or hearing about it on talk radio are really going to be swayed no matter what the protesters actually do on the streets of oakland. we've reached a post-reality political world, for many.

            it's when they see things with their own eyes that talking points can be dislodged. before then, it's tough unless people are already suspicious they're being lied to.

            •  no flags were burned, i saw the video, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, mrsgoo, elwior, JayRaye

              after the much, a protester was pulled over for a driving a car with a broken headlight and arrested, a small crowd from the ftp march came over to see what was happening and upon learning the b.s. reason for pulling over the car and arrest, started to mill about with cameras going. Two people got  very close to a parked police car/police officers and were arrested, rather violently. youtube

              Solvent Green is Grandma

              by mad cow on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:48:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So that is probably why those photos were pulled. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, elwior, hooper, JayRaye

                They were bullshit from something else to start with. Citizen Journalists are doing a wonderful job at constraining the lies.

                "We're here to start a dialog, nothing more. We keep quiet and let the press, the politicians, and the Wall Streeters hang themselves." h/t .- pistols at dawn. I'm a Sacramento/San Joaquin Kossack. Are You?

                by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 09:06:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  There was a flag burned earlier in the march.... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, elwior, JayRaye

                as it was returning downtown via Broadway. I saw it on the OaktownLive ustream.

                As far as I know there have been three flag burnings: the one on the 28th, and one on each of the two subsequent FTP marches. I don’t know who was responsible for the first or third, but I do know who burned the second one: it was a man who’s been bitter at the rest of the group since his finance proposal failed, and has tried to disrupt GAs by shouting and making death threats against the Facilitation and Finance Committees. The other incidents may or may not have been sincere, but I suspect that one was only done to damage Occupy’s image.

            •  That is what I see as my job with my peeps... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, elwior, JayRaye
              it's when they see things with their own eyes that talking points can be dislodged. before then, it's tough unless people are already suspicious they're being lied to.
              I have made great headway with my little group of friends/customers. Already have one vietnam era vet who has never, ever voted - going to register D and vote this year. He's the kind of guy that the flag burning crap won't fly with. Our other friend, never ever registered or voted. I've got him very skeptical about the BS in the papers now. He is seeing what is going on. I'll about take bets he might get registered and vote this year.

              "We're here to start a dialog, nothing more. We keep quiet and let the press, the politicians, and the Wall Streeters hang themselves." h/t .- pistols at dawn. I'm a Sacramento/San Joaquin Kossack. Are You?

              by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 09:11:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excellent work! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mrsgoo, SouthernLiberalinMD, JayRaye

                I suppose your veteran friend has a already forgotten about how Scott Olsen was nearly killed peacefully protesting, though.

                Amazing how the image of a symbolic piece of cloth on fire can supersede the image of a flesh and blood veteran lying there bleeding as the OPD tosses a flash-bang grenade into the group of Occupiers who has come out to help him.

                •  The first guy does not even know who Scott is. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jpmassar, elwior, JayRaye

                  I got to him during the first budget fiasco. He was terrified his social security check would go away and he would not be able to pay his rent. The second guy, he's a newspaper reader and he can see that what he reads is not matching up to reality. I almost have his wife ready to go to an Occupy event. She about sheeite herself when I told her I was involved but I have not had anything like the involvement you have had. {{jpm}} I really appreciate you bringing the updates here for the rest of us. I am really hoping that Occupy takes off big time again in the spring.

                  "Do you want me to go somewhere or should I just shut up?" - Glenn Campbell, 2012 Grammys The Rhinestone Cowboy rocks. You Go Glenn!!

                  by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 10:50:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps you should inform him of what (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mrsgoo, elwior, JayRaye

                    happened to Scott, then.

                    •  No nice way to say this. He has no interest (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      elwior, wu ming, JayRaye, jpmassar

                      whatsoever in current events. He hangs out, watches daytime teevee, takes his 85 yr old mom to the Indian casino as the highlight of their life. He lives for football on the teevee. I am truly amazed I was able to get to him at all. And I will be prodding him to make sure he gets registered to vote. Which is funny, his late wife, stoner to the bone was an avid voter. But she could never talk him into it apparently.

                      "Do you want me to go somewhere or should I just shut up?" - Glenn Campbell, 2012 Grammys The Rhinestone Cowboy rocks. You Go Glenn!!

                      by mrsgoo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 11:02:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  not to everyone (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JayRaye, jpmassar

                  A lot of Marines took notice.

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

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:18:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  well done! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JayRaye, jpmassar

                it takes a long investment of time to pull that off, i have found.

              •  Good Work (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                You might remind your friends that one person out out 1000s burned a flag. I am over 60, and remember the Viet Nam anti-war protesters. We also had some bad actors on the fringe burning flags. Yet the movement continued with mass protests. We cannot give up because of the actions of a few whom we cannot control.

                If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Women

                by JayRaye on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 08:06:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  True that much of the media will still report (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayRaye, jpmassar

          anything they can that looks bad, but I still think it's important.  There is power in the moral high ground, and it'll give some of the media something else to report.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site