The Cascadian Journal of Occupology

How to dump Google

2012-03-05T15:46:00.000-08:00

With the new privacy policies of Google, everything you search for on the Google search engine is now being logged and sold to advertisers and other third-parties. Like political and economic powers, overconcentration of information is also a danger.

For those who are using Google Chrome or its open-source Linux equivalent, Chromium, it almost looks as though there are no good alternatives to Google when it comes to using the omnibox for searches.

There is, however, an alternative -- that is even more powerful and versatile than Google itself.

1. Clean out Google Web History: http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57382925-285/how-to-remove-your-google-web-history/

2. Go to the toolbox button at the top right-hand corner.

3. Go to "Preferences." (Or type "chrome://settings/browser" into the omnibox).

4. Click on the box next to "DuckDuckGo" cilck on "Make Default."

5. Close the search engine menu.

6. Now whatever you type into the omnibox (aside from URLs) will go to DuckDuckGo SSL site.

7. One of the greatest features of DuckDuckGo is the "!bang syntax"
for example:

!weather 97212
!wiki occupy wall street
!a nancy garden
!jstor melissa raphael

The list of all known !bang keywords are right here: http://duckduckgo.com/bang.html

Occupy's Challenge

2012-03-03T07:44:00.002-08:00

Occupy Detroit (Photo credit: Cocoloco Photography)

MONDAY, FEB 27, 2012 9:25 AM PST

Occupy’s challenge: Reinventing democracy
Behind the scenes with rogue drummers, homeless, liberals and the black bloc as OWS grapples with self-government
BY ARUN GUPTA

For example, an attempt by a group calling itself The 99% Declaration to convene a “National General Assembly” in Philadelphia on July 4 was rejected by both the Occupy Philly General Assembly and Occupy Wall Street as the event smacked of co-optation by an outside group that allegedly included a former Goldman Sachs executive. It went around the Occupy Chicago General Assembly and put it in the position of having to endorse the call or make it appear that the movement was split – which the media would have played up. While there is no reason for the Occupy movement to embrace messaging, polls, talking points, focus groups and the other marketing tools of the heavyweight but feeble liberal groups, all sectors need to be aware that those who act in its name have the power to damage it. Cagle also observed that the “peaceful but militant blockade of the Port of Oakland on December 12 … garnered Occupy Oakland more criticism than the black bloc actions on November 2.”

David Graeber justifiably dressed down Chris Hedges for failing to explain that as the black bloc is a tactic, not an anarchist grouping, it crosses the left’s rambling spectrum. And three, the black bloc is a legitimate part of the Occupy movement. Schneider says the original Occupy Wall Street action “involved a tactical committee composed of a small group of people working partly in secret.” He explains that the announced target for the Sept. There aren’t the traditional forms of accountability in which responsibilities are clear and someone can be removed.”

Peter Bratsis, a professor of political theory at the University of Salford and author of ”Everyday Life and the State,” asks, “How do you create authority within the movement, how is that authority going to act, do we have groups working in affinity with each other or one disciplined group recognizing the authority of the GA to make strategic decisions?”

The problem, according to Bratsis, is “how to find macro-level coordination but recognize the autonomy of all the individual left groupings."

This is a machine-generated summary. Read full-text: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/27/occupys_challenge_reinventing_democracy/singleton

Class war within Occupy Portland

2012-03-02T13:05:00.002-08:00

Occupy Portland (Photo credit: Truthout.org)

a commentary
By Lester Macgurdy
The Portland Occupier

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. (The middle classes generally seem more willing to stand in an open field at midday and stare directly into the sun, than face with open eyes the naked harshness of their apocalyptic future.)

The poor joined with the middle class, because, well, any port in a storm, right? Hopeful for an end to the monstrous system that makes virtue of the disenfranchisement of the many to increase the idle fancy of the few–but too politically and socially illiterate to grasp the pitfalls ahead–the poor fell into willing alliance with this middle class. Through this alliance, the middle class “radicals” managed to rebel, yet still mostly avoid the bitter cold and rough pavement experienced by their poor brethren–consigned to tents and jail cells– because they could, and did, go home at night.

In reviewing the documents from the early stages of the movement, it became obvious that Occupy Portland made a convenient scapegoat of the so-called Group of Four–a group that treated the movement as their own pet piggy bank, even though it seems that the only real crime that three of those four committed–which their beneficiaries haven’t–is the crime of getting caught. And as there is, by the very conditions of their respective existence, an abyss between the bourgeois world and the world of the worker,–the one being the exploiting world, the other the world of the victimized and exploited. all this diversity of interest expressing common social ambition and constituting the life of the bourgeois world, establishes between these who belong to this world a solidarity infinitely more real, deeper, and unquestionably more sincere than any that might arise between a section of the bourgeoisie and the workers.

The great debates that have raged within Occupy Portland, dividing it into factions, have, to a great degree, been class based.

This is a machine-generated summary. Read the full text at http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2012/03/02/the-class-war-within/

Occupy the Next Level

2012-02-25T09:18:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

The Occupy Next group can be found online at http://groupspaces.com/OccupyNext

Half a year is a long time in the history of the Occupy movement. In March, we will mark the 6-month point since the beginning of the first Occupy Wall Street encampment. At the time, it was a novelty but also a fringe movement, a curiosity that was talked about but not something the ordinary people could relate to.

Unlike what the radical Occupiers say, the turning point was not the largest mass arrests in the history of New York, but when the air pilots' union joined the Occupy demonstration in their pilot uniforms. Then came the retired Marines in their uniforms, and union workers from mainstream unions (not IWW, but UAW, Teamsters, etc.) that the Occupy Movement truly became that of the 99 Percent.

At the beginning of Occupy Portland in early October, we were riding the waves of positive public sentiment and even public support from elected officials ranging from Commissioner Amanda Fritz to Congressmen Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. Local businesses even used "Occupy" theme in their advertisements, as "Occupy" became a household word and they used the Occupy message to promote the strength of locally-owned enterprises. Even the rank-and-file police officers generally were sympathetic of the movement.

Everything changed some time in early-to-mid November, and that had a lot to do with the coordinated negative media campaign as well as the sudden changes in public officials' attitudes; however, what really brought the Occupy Movement into a place of irrelevance to the mainstream citizenry is the radicalization and senseless confrontational tactics that not only created unnecessary troubles but also held no strategic advantages. Soon after the Occupy became known for chaotic and disorderly marches, radical "anarchist" and "black bloc" tactics, and lack of coherent message. Sounds similar to the anti-Iraq-war movement of the past decade? The movement somehow became another subcultural niche inhabited by the radicals and aspiring revolutionaries, but it no longer holds the potentials it held back in October.

Do you remember days when mainstream TV stations covered our every move and actually said positive things about us? Do you remember days when donations of food, supplies and money flooded into the parks from everywhere? Do you remember when elected officials and union executives were proud to associate themselves with the Occupy Movement? Do you remember when the Occupy Movement was far more inclusive -- family-and-kids friendly, multicultural, cross-class, and all about the good of the common? Do you remember when people honked as they drove by, and bus driver even announced where to get off for Occupy Portland? And most importantly, when people came to our parks and were talking all the time, 24/7?

The unfortunate mistake we as a movement made was to see them all as "sell-out" and "co-opting" and alienated all these supporters and allies while a smaller and visible minority special interest group continued its "F* the Police" radicalization.

It is time for the movement to grow up, stop making enemies, and Occupy the Next Level.

Occupy Next, for a mature, civilized, strategically wise, and more inclusive Occupy Movement.

The Big Brother: from 1984 to 2014

2012-02-25T07:51:00.000-08:00

Day 22- This Phone is Tapped (Photo credit: Jinx!)

Ten years ago, in the heady days of post-9/11 patriotic fervor and Republican drumbeats of war abroad and "homeland security" paranoia at home, many expressed concerns that the federal government is actively wiretapping phone calls and Internet traffic. In fact, technology to wiretap telephone conversations existed even in the 1980s, called ECHELON, and it has been widely known that during the heyday of America's "war on drugs" payphones were outfitted with wiretapping devices.

Ten years ago, however, I laughed off these paranoid concerns as just that, overly paranoid. Though technology existed in theory to wiretap every single phone calls and email in the U.S., and even if the Bush Administration completely acted in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, there remained one single reason why such a concern was unsubstatiated: the manpower.

To hire thousands and thousands of federal agents, move them through "secret"- and "top secret"-level security clearances, train them at the NLETC (which means the government having to pay for travel and accommodation expenses), and then work them around-the-clock to intercept and analyze massive amount of communications that would be even more wasteful than finding a needle in a barn full of haystacks, just seemed implausible and simply impossible.

Today, however, the technology exists to automatically analyze and aggregate social media and email communications to flag "suspicious" materials. The same technology that made convenience of fully-searchable Gmail (which was revolutionary when it came out in 2003) and various social media and blog aggregation tools that we have come to use is now at the disposal of federal and state police apparatuses. Since the technology and platforms are available to anyone free of charge, it is not even necessary to obtain a warrant. They can simply set up automatic Twitter search for various words and combination of words.

Of course, as the very 9/11 demonstrates, overreliance on computers leads to the failure of human intelligence. The modern technology gives everyone an illusion -- yet it is by no means accurate or intelligent (computers cannot think!). Thus there are many false positives, and those who have nothing to do with terrorism and pose no credible threats are the ones who become targeted by the FBI and DHS alike. One of the recent such examples is a pair of tourists from the Great Britain, who were detained at the Los Angeles International Airport, jailed and ultimately excluded from the U.S. all for two lines of Twitter posts, that for any reasonable mind, that were clearly not any form of terrorist threat.

This is plain absurd, as real terrorists would not be publicly broadcasting their intentions, and if they did use the Internet for communication they would be using ciphers or otherwise coded messages, unless they are absolutely dumb. They would certainly not be using a Twitter account that could be identifiable (now of course, another question is how the CBP managed to link a Twitter account to a particular tourist, and even linked it to his real name and his flight number -- many Twitter users use aliases and made-up identities, so the chance of false positives are very high, unless CBP managed to obtain a warrant to subpoena Twitter's user data, which would be questionable given that the tourish was on the I-94W Visa Waiver Pilot Program, and therefore the passenger data only went to the CBP when the passenger checked in at the Heathrow Airport).

Therefore the Big Brother is indeed watching. Even though the U.S. State Department routinely criticizes the government of the People's Republic of China for alleged human rights violations, I find that more and more China and the U.S. are becoming similar to one another, as they emulate each other's policies. Though the former is nominally a socialist state run by the Communist Party, and the latter is nominally a free democracy under a representative federal republic, in reality the differences between the two are no longer very significant. American companies who supply technologies to censor the Internet in China are the same ones who contract with the U.S. government. Either way there is money to be made.

Therefore my fear is not that the U.S. government actually doing its job to keep America safe; my fear instead is that the power and technology are either misused for unstated purposes (such as controlling political dissents) or else completely render the intelligence agencies incompetent. There are certain things computers cannot simply replace humans, discernment and rational judgment being two.

A controversial proposition

2012-01-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

During the past week, Portland had an episode of winter storms that was reminiscent of the 1996 disaster. For the winter that has been unusually dry and warm, the needs of the unhoused population were not as severe as they had been over the past few years in which Portland had nasty winters. Yet, this week, the City of Portland declared an emergency and opened for two nights the emergency warming center operated by the Oregon Trail Chapter of the American Red Cross.

Especially in winter, but more specifically during the weeks preceding Christmas in the "holiday spirit of giving and sharing," many people give some thoughts about "how to help the homeless."

After years of my experiences in the homeless industry, at some point as its subject, and at some point as its worker, and occasionally as a member of a committee, council or a board making policies for the homeless industry, my answer is this: don't.

Most people who have never had an experience of being unhoused do not have a clue. The point-of-departure is wrong: if anyone who starts out by saying "how can I help the homeless" is exactly the kind of person that is not part of the solution. Pity does not do any good, and neither does condescending, paternalistic "I-know-better-than-they-do" kind of attitude. Therefore, I am extremely weary of those who claim to "help the homeless."

For example, one of the first things they would come up with is to "feed the homeless." Um, sorry, but are they ducks in a park? Or a dog? Or cattle? Feed? This aside, at least in central Portland (not necessarily in the suburbs), the way it stands now is that it is impossible to starve. Within walking distances of downtown Portland, one can live off all the abundance of free food that is given away by many churches and charities. It actually creates a class of people who become products of the system -- instead of emerging out of and liberating themselves from poverty. In fact, the people who can use free food more are those who live in low-income or subsidized apartments, as well as those who make ends meet working several jobs just to pay rent and bills. They have far less disposable income that could be spent on food, and often they are forced to choose between rent and food. And many who have jobs -- even if they are on-call, work for minimum wage for few hours -- do not qualify for public assistance. On the contrary, unhoused people do not have those financial obligations and the overhead expenses are minimal in comparison, while most of them receive SNAP and SSDI benefits, making them far more affluent than those whose paychecks are taken away almost entirely by their landlords and utility companies. The lesson? Poverty, hunger, and housing are three separate issues, even though they often overlap. Therefore one cannot, strictly speaking, "help the homeless" by "feeding" them, any more than a doctor can cure foot fungus by prescribing head lice killer.

But this is not my controversial proposition. I addressed this only to illustrate the ignorance and paternalism so prevalent in the popular mindset.

My proposition, rather, is to change the narratives. Oppressed people will never become free when the narratives are owned by the others, especially those who pathologize them or see them as problems. The gay liberation movement saw this, when homosexuality was considered disgusting, sinful, and sick. Some well-meaning people tried to "help" the gays by referring them to various treatment programs, while others prayed for them to become free from homosexuality. Neither led to equality, freedom, and opportunities for the sexual minorities.

The only way for the unhoused people's movement to press forward is to stop asking the powers-that-be for handouts, compassion or charity. They are already hated, marginalized, oppressed, and pathologized to the max. Like the original thrust towards "gay pride" (when it did not mean some large commercialized festival and parade), the unhoused people must create a new narrative that casts them as respectable, proud citizens who lead a desirable, honorable life. Of course, this is challenging now when it feels anything but desirable to be exposed to the rain, wind and snow day and night. But until the narratives and frames-of-references are revolutionized, and until they stand up and assert their rights to self-determination and sovereignty, then they will forever remain wards of the charity and permanent underclass.

Also see: http://cjoccupology.blogspot.com/2011/12/repost-end-anti-homeless-hate-prejudice.html

Occupy still?

2012-01-20T08:55:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

In brief
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

Recently there has been some debates about whether the movement should continue calling itself "Occupy". The argument largely comes from the position that an occupation has a colonialist and militaristic connotation, and words such as "decolonize" and "liberate" are more desirable.

Yet, "Occupy" has become a worldwide brand -- one that is easily recognized and evokes vivid imagery -- and our use of the name "Occupy Portland" from the beginning was our statement of connection to and solidarity with the original Occupy Wall Street. Changing the name away from Occupy takes away that strength that this word has garnered since last October.

This is a tricky issue, as both sides of this argument has a valid point. Yet, it is probably more important to recapture the energy of the first few weeks of the Occupation, when one could easily organize anything whenever one called anything "Occupy _____" and TV cameras would show up automatically. Right now, the problem is not bad publicity or misinformation by the mainstream media; the problem is lack of media exposure at all. The movement is quickly fading from the minds of the general public during this winter, and it is time to start re-energizing.

Share this Christmas with an Occupier!

2011-12-20T16:14:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

For most people, Christmas is a sweet day filled with sentimental nostalgia and family-centric activities. For some, this day is the worst day of the year. Those who do not have family or close friends nearby (and in this economy it is increasingly less affordable to travel) and/or those without housing feel the sense of utter exclusion from society, in addition to not having any access to resources that they rely upon.

Christmas is still America's number one family holiday and yet it has become a privilege despite the fact that it is a federal statutory holiday for all persons in the United States.

This year, #OccupyChristmasPDX and share your holiday spirit with an Occupier -- and in return the Occupier will share their Occupy spirit and energy with your family where you live! This is a great opportunity to learn more about the Occupy movement from first-person statements by those who live and breathe the Occupy, and engage in dialogues and community-building with the real Occupiers.

To be part of this event, registration deadlines is 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 23.

For more information or to register either as a host or as an Occupier, go to http://tinyurl.com/opdx-christmas.

What did the D12 port shut-down accomplish?

2011-12-16T13:03:00.000-08:00

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

"Occupy Portland definitely made a statement on Monday, December 12. Joining Occupy movements nationally, hundreds of local occupiers braved predawn frost to trek north and then shut down most operations at the Port of Portland. Occupy, despite its show of force, largely failed to sell the shutdown to skeptical members of the working class looking to support the movement."

-- http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/hard-to-port/Content?oid=5268038

Pedagogy of the Protest

2011-12-16T11:13:00.000-08:00

Image by Maga Soto via Flickr

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan
originally published on PulseWire, Oct. 23, 2011

As the #OccupyPortland encampment enters the second half of the third week of its existence, I have seen so much development within this emerging community. The unhoused people -- especially those who are visible of that fact -- are the refugees and the undocumented immigrants of the #OccupyPortland community.

Full-text: http://www.worldpulse.com/node/46279

The new General Assembly/Spokes Council schedule

2011-12-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

a digest

http://interoccupy.org/occga-structures-and-process-proposal-passed-portland/

Occupy Portland Oregon: GA Structures and Process Proposal to Change and Mix Meeting Styles and Types Passes GA 12/14/2011

Image via Wikipedia

“…..(Portland and) other occupations nationwide are having similar problems and are working to make changes that will facilitate more space for open discussion, connection and affinity building, instead of process heavy, decision making meetings that sometimes stifle new ideas that need a more open space to foster…..”

Schedule:
MON – Agenda Setting, Proposal Announcement and Discussion Meeting (proposals and agendas will then be posted online for the Thur and Sat meetings)
TUE – Movement Building Open Forum (Unconference / Open Space style meeting for flexible and
purposeful group conversations, work group work and cross-pollination of people and ideas
WED – Open Night (A good night for other important meetings or a day of rest in the weekly cycle)
THU – Spokes Council (As it has been )
FRI – Cultural Events (Different events at different venues well suited to the occasion)
SAT – General Assembly (As it has been)
SUN – Feather Circle (Idea Discussion Circle with a process well suited to working through challenging items that are “stuck”).

This summary was automatically generated by OTS, at summary ratio of 10 percent. (More about the OTS: http://syslab.com/blog/condensing-with-open-text-summarizer)

A great analysis of Re-Occu-Fest success from a military scientist

2011-12-15T19:52:00.000-08:00

While the protesters can retreat quickly, the police can onlyadvance as fast as their light infantry, supporting staff can follow and maintain a secure rear (if the mass ofprotesters were to run to the next block over and quickly loop around to the rear of the riot cops, theorganization of the cops would be reduced to chaos). They realized that they would have to go through the standardmilitary procedure of clearing the park inch by inch, only to have us go back out into the streets and marchagain while they, one more time, trailed along helplessly- their entourage functioning as a part of the march,creating an even larger disruption to traffic (the marchers covered a city block, the trailing police took up another city block, effectively doubling the size of the obstruction to traffic).

Read the full article: http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-outsmarts-police-creating-blueprint-for-other-occupations/
(Summary above generated automatically by OTS)

Is Occupy movement antithetical to "real" Christianity?

2011-12-12T11:10:00.000-08:00

http://chaplainsoccupypdx.blogspot.com/2011/12/real-christians-dont-occupy.html

Is this what democracy looks like?

2011-12-10T21:02:00.001-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

"This is what democracy looks like!" says one of the most popular slogans of the Occupy movement.

At least during the early stages of the Occupation, we have generally steered away from the "anarchist" elements as well as from the libertarians of the Ron Paul variety, even though the "End the Fed" signs were everywhere and black-clad anarcho-punks were a large contingent in this movement from the beginning.

Often the Occupy movement masterfully co-opted the language of pure Americana and rhetoric of patriotism, as if to reclaim them from the far-right neo-conservatives who have made such symbols and languages their exclusive properties for all practical purposes.

Yet, democracy is the proverbial white elephant in the room that, for many Americans who grew up entirely conditioned by the civics education (propaganda) of their grade school days, democracy is too sacrosanct to challenge. Sure, around the world, democratic movements have always been powerful. From the Tian'anmen Square demonstration to the Arab Spring, and collapses of the Soviet bloc and several despotic regimes in the Islamic world, it looks as though democracy is the ultimate panacea to all the problems of the world.

I have come to believe that democracy is a failed sociopolitical experiment whose days are counted, if not has already passed. For the good of the world that is becoming increasingly polarized and unsustainable, it must be once and for all abolished globally.

Democracy comes with myriad of problems, and it is so by design. Unlike other systems of governing, it was invented by a group of criminals to exert a coercive and oppressive power over those whom they exclude -- those who do not count as part of the demos, or the people. Democracy also turned government into faceless and impersonal corporations -- through which the powers-that-be indirectly exercise power. Democracy possesses no legitimacy in a natural and traditional sense of sovereignty; while it claims that it derives its power from the consent of the governed, it is nothing more than a mass delusion. No one who are alive today has had an opportunity to offer any consent to be governed by any government one way or the other; and the civic ritual known as election is mostly worthless exercise that cannot effect any meaningful changes.

I propose the most radical -- and yet most reasonable in the grand scheme of history: a return to monarchy. Whereas democracy or a republican government is short-sighted and driven entirely by short-term political gains of elected officials and candidates for elected offices for the next election, a monarchy provides for stability, continuity, and most importantly, allows the government to truly govern for the good of all people -- including those who are excluded, denigrated and disenfranchised by the republic -- without fear or favor of anything except for the highest good and timeless moral principles.

On the other hand, in a democracy, elected officials do not need to be worried about long-term consequences as their terms only run for a relatively short term (eight years for the U.S. president and Oregon governor) and incumbents can be unseated any time. Once their terms are over, they would have a quiet retirement or a life in private sector, no longer bothered by the responsibilities of governing. While many falsely believe that monarchs do not have any accountability, one can only realize how wrong that assumption is when considering this: (1) unlike in a democracy, the consequence of bad governing will follow the monarch for the rest of his or her life; and (2) follows even to the next generations -- and who would not care about their children and grand-children? Now that is an accountability for life.

Historically, democracies and republics are far more prone to repressive and despotic regimes that perpetuate severe violence. Hitler rose to power as the chancellor of the Weimer Republic, through democratic process. Most socialist and communist regimes also are structured as republics.

In comparison, monarchies around the world are generally better rated in human rights indexes compared with countries of similar economic standing in a similar geographic and cultural sphere. Think of Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, or even Thailand and Bhutan. They are known for human rights, individual freedom, and long-term political stability -- as well as for extensive and near-universal social welfare programs and high-quality education. Compare this with republics of otherwise similar standings: Germany, Ireland, the United States, Singapore, Myanmar, and India, respectively.

Interestingly, it is worth noting that in the United States, historically it is often the Supreme Court that safeguards the human rights and civil liberties of individuals; and the U.S. Supreme Court is the most undemocratic of all American institutions, that comes as close as anything American can be to a monarchy. Unlike just about everything else in the U.S., the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life (until the mandatory retirement age) and once appointed they are completely unaffected by partisan politics or any other elements of a democratic machinery. Imagine America without the Supreme Court -- or even worse, a Supreme Court that is elected every four years. Justice will be denied to all except for the big corporate special interests that elect them into office.

note: My critique of democracy does not extend to self-management of small communities or workplaces through a directly participatory collectivism, such as worker-owned collectives, collective farms, or the Occupy movement. However, practicality dictates that such "direct democracy" would only work if it is small enough -- something familiar to those who facilitate a General Assembly (or People's Assembly) and a Spokes Council meeting (which, indeed, arose from the concern that the GA had become too big to be an effective way for people to directly express their voices). Traditionally, monarchies have seen themselves as a kind of one big extended family, and they historically arose from consolidations and confederations of older tribal societies. As such, a monarchy -- and feudalism in its original form -- always had multiplicity and layers of governance.
.

A rebuttal to Commissioner Amanda Fritz

2011-12-10T14:25:00.001-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

While camping out is a visible way to protest, it is not necessary for pursuing the political agenda, as there are other ways of remaining visible and active in advocacy. And illegal camping distracts the focus from the reason for the protests. Even leaders in the Occupy movement have admitted that many other problems with drugs, crime, mental health and houselessness soon overshadowed the primary Occupy issues and became the primary focus with the encampment. -- Amanda Fritz, Portland City Commissioner

(Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/08/1043434/-Occupy-Portland:Another-Political-Email-Claiming-The-Encampment-Will-Not-Let-Me-Use-the-Park)

Dear Amanda,

Like you, I come from an immigrant past. Like many immigrants, I have experienced and became familiar with many forms of oppression in the world's wealthiest and most powerful country on earth. Drugs, crime, mental health and houselessness are not distractions; rather, they are symptoms and constant reminders of the systemic ill of both local and national public policies. As you should know very well as a former OHSU psychiatric nurse and a union activist, much of these issues are product of misallocation of public funds from public welfare to systemic violence, namely, eliminating or reducing funding for education, healthcare and safety-net programs while increasing funding for military, police and prisons.

Public camping is in no way a novel invention of the Occupy movement. In Latin America, it has long been known as plantón. Many immigrant workers from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America, as well as the Philippines, are familiar with the tradition of plantón. Many plantónes have occupied factories, plazas and other public places for days and months, and have been known there as a very effective way of demonstration. Unions, student movements, indigenous movements, and farmers' organizations have occupied in Latin America -- long, long before the first Occupy camp popped up in New York City. [1]

As an elected public official, you are not in a place to decide or judge what mode of demonstration is "necessary" or "unnecessary" in furthering the Occupy's goals. To do so is a content-based interference of the constitutional freedoms in both Oregon and federal constitutions, which you as a city official cannot do.

One of the arguments I hear often from city officials is that the city government only has finite funds. Yet, a government is not a private business or a non-profit organization. Neither are parks and other public spaces merely "government-owned private properties." Much of the economic crisis and public-sector budget crisis today -- from Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., and to Oregon -- come from this idea of treating public services like a business. To save valuable public services for all Portlanders, we ought to rethink the entire concept of government, economic system, taxation, property rights, and how we as society function for the betterment of all humankind.

Sincerely,

Sarah Morrigan

1. Bacon, D. (2011.) Unions and immigrants join Occupy movements. Truthout (2011, Dec 6). Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/unions-and-immigrants-join-occupy-movements/1323183717, accessed 10 Dec 2011.

Deficiency of the "Declaration"

2011-12-10T14:00:00.001-08:00

Image by JuntosWorldwide via Flickr

in brief

Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

Owen Sanders is spearheading an effort at composing the "Declaration of Occupy Portland." This draft document is largely inspired by the original declaration from the Occupy Wall Street.

I find this document to be painfully deficient. In last night's Spokes Council, a question was raised as for the necessity of this document -- or whether each Occupation should craft its own document when most of its documents are largely identical to that of OWS.

If there is anything, the Occupy Portland declaration ought to complement the original OWS declaration by addressing local issues and how local political, economic and social issues touch our lives personally. Mayor Sam Adams, now a self-anointed "progressive liberal" mayor who is a loud critic of the movement, who seems to have found his own niche in declaring himself outside and above the grievances of this movement, believes that the Occupy movement should not address any local issues. I find this to be wrong; all local issues are strongly connected to the global issues, and localized manifestations of global socioeconomic and political ills are what concern the Main Street and neighborhoods in which Portland's Occupiers live, work and play. Yet the draft declaration speaks nothing of policy issues of the City of Portland, Multnomah County, or the State of Oregon.

Additionally, the declaration uncritically accepts a position -- at a time when "progressive liberal" politicians are increasingly distancing themselves from the Occupy movement and the 99 percent -- that an electoral, representative democracy is sacrosanct and inviolable. The declaration does not touch the systemic injustice arising from a republican form of government, or from the history of imperialism and exploitation that is the "United States of America." While a large number of Occupiers are carefully optimistic that a dysfunctional political system of America can be somehow reformed while maintaining the present system of a representative federal republic intact, it is in no way a consensus of the entire Occupy Portland movement -- which counts among its ranks anarchists, socialists, communists, and libertarians.

Call for immediate help! Solidarity!

2011-12-09T12:06:00.001-08:00

Play voice message above (Flash)

It has been below-freezing at nights and morning hours, and there are many occupiers who are still outside. Let's show some serious solidarity with all occupiers.

Call Miranda at (503) 289-0555.

Thanks.

Restoring the concept of commons - from hoarding mentality to sharing mentality

2011-12-09T10:36:00.001-08:00

Image by Pietro via Flickr

in brief
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

At the root of many social problems the Occupy movement speaks out against is the greed and hoarding mentality. Historically, hoarding is associated with the sense of scarcity, and thus works like a self-fulfilling prophecy and self-defeating behavior: the more greed one promotes the more scarcity one brings to the community at large. The current state of economy is a prime example of this: banking and corporate executives keep hoarding more and more of the world's wealth to shield themselves against the perceived scarcity and insecurity, only to create more and more scarcity and insecurity in the world.

In the olden days, every town had common spaces. The commons were not parks of today; commons belonged to everyone and at the same time owned by no one. Parks in American cities today are, in contrast, rather a government-owned private property.

In the creative sector and information technologies, a new paradigm has been emerging during the past decade. Open-source programming communities, collaborative creativity, and structures such as GNU Public License (GPL) and Creative Commons Public License (CCPL) are reframing the concept of shared assets, sharing and freedom to use the commons.

How can this idea be translated to our physical spaces? While radical solutions such as a total abolition of private property are sometimes suggested, we must think also of something that can be immediately experimented with (GPL and CCPL, for example, create an alternative structure within the existing copyright laws without radically dismantling the concept of copyright or creators' rights to remuneration).

One idea is to implement something like allemansrätten (Swedish for "the everyman's right") found in several Scandinavian countries, in addition to a British-style squatting law.

Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land —with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. Restrictions apply for nature reserves and other protected areas. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries (provided one knows they are not legally protected), but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. Visiting beaches and walking by a shoreline is permitted, providing it is not a part of a garden or within the immediate vicinity of a residence (legally defined as the hemfridszon). According to legal practice this is between 100 to 300 metres from a dwelling house.[9] To better protect access to water and the right to walk along beaches, it is since 1975 generally not permitted to build a new house near (generally 100 m) from a beach and/or shoreline.

Repost: End the anti-homeless hate, prejudice and discrimination: an emerging take-away from #OccupyPortland

2011-12-09T10:08:00.001-08:00

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

As an Alternet report dated on Oct. 23, 2011 has noted, "[T]he Occupy Wall Streeters are beginning to discover what homeless people have known all along--that most ordinary activities are illegal when performed in public." (http://www.alternet.org/story/152837/how_homelessness_became_an_occupy_wall_street_issue?page=entire)

Image via Wikipedia

One of the major ways that the mainstream media focused on in order to discredit the #OccupyPortland movement was to launch a coordinated smear campaign using the "chronically homeless" and "street youth" as the majority representation of the Occupation. Whether it was true or not is irrelevant; what is relevant here is that how "homelessness" can be used by the media and politicians to launch a successful campaign against anything. Time after time, the same kind of campaign is launched against a specific neighborhood, a social service agency, or even against a for-profit business (such as stores that accommodate the homeless too kindly). The real issue here is that deep-seated hatred, hostility and prejudice against the unhoused people exist, along with an associated stereotype of "the homeless" to fuel this hatred, loathing and fear among the people -- not unlike similar stereotype and prejudice against certain racial and ethnic groups, or against the sexual minorities, or against members of certain religions.

During my occupation at the #OccupyPortland encampment, I discovered an interesting evidence of this deep-seated and largely unexamined prejudice. I am involved with various programs at a certain Episcopal church in Portland, Oregon, that is generally viewed as upscale and with mostly affluent membership. To its credit, it has a large-scale outreach ministry to provide food to both unhoused and housed low-income people alike. Yet, outside the outreach work, it has been always clear to me that most of its parishioners, as well as its clergy and employees are unfriendly (if not outright hostile) to anyone who are unhoused and dare show up at worship services. People look at them with contempt, follow them around as if they are public enemy number one, keep them at three arms' lengths, and whenever expedient, try to kick them out. I have heard many times from a few of the church's employees that they are tired of "babysitting the homeless."

Yet, on one Sunday I gave a 10-minute presentation on #OccupyPortland and told my story of camping out in a park for four and a half weeks. The crowd applauded. Many commented how proud they were for me doing this, and that they were thankful for me doing what they were unable to do although they wanted to do.

What if I just told walked in and told them that I camp out in a downtown park?

I'm pretty sure they'd give me a scornful look, and shortly after would be escorted out by one of the sextons. No one would probably dare even speak to me.

That Sunday was an epiphany moment. I finally understood what I felt for a long time but was unable to put my finger on.

There is a prejudice, hatred and discrimination.

In the City of Portland, in the State of Oregon, and in the United States of America, the unhoused people are among the last of those who could legally be discriminated against from housing, employment and public accommodation.

In my years of community organizing among the unhoused people, I have heard many, many times that how companies would not hire them because they are "homeless", or how it is far more difficult to rent an apartment even though they have money because they had a history of "homelessness" evidenced by a gap in rental history. As for public accommodation, some shopping malls and businesses are outright hostile to unhoused people and, even when they are paying customers, deny or attempt to deny public accommodation. A certain convenience store chain is notorious for denying sale of alcoholic beverages to unhoused people, even though no state law or regulation mandates it.

While government officials and non-profit executives sell "homelessness" to score political points, build their own legacies and to raise funds, the actual unhoused people are dehumanized, marginalized, disempowered and systemically denied even the most fundamental human rights. The police also profiles and targets the unhoused people, just as they do the people of color and immigrants. The unhoused people are more prone to prolonged incarceration and unfavorable sentences. The unhoused people also are systemically restricted or barred from accessing post office boxes (the post office requires a proof of residence), banking (USA PATRIOT Act requires a proof of residence), and identification card or driving license (which is becoming next to impossible due to the anti-immigrant laws enacted in recent years in the name of the war on terrorism).

Additionally, hate crimes against unhoused people are serious, recurring problems in American cities including Portland, Oregon.

The #Occupy movement brought us to stand in solidarity with unhoused people, the urban nomads, and street dwellers. We must unite to end discrimination against the unhoused people.

We have heard too many times the lip services public officials make to "help the homeless." However, no meaningful advancement is made unless this inequity is addressed and barriers to participating in society are removed by protecting the unhoused individuals from discrimination and hate.

The first step is to push for a city ordinance protecting the unhoused people from discrimination in housing, public accommodation and employment, and also requiring the Portland Police Bureau to keep statistics of hate crimes against the unhoused victims. In Oregon, what is legislated in Portland and Multnomah County becomes state law in a few years. Thus this is an important step to ensure that discrimination and hate against "homeless" individuals end.

-
* note: I have put "homeless" in quote marks as the word evokes a very negative stereotype which does not reflect the reality. The word "homeless" also overgeneralizes people to the point which individual issues are glossed over based simply on the mode of living. This is no more accurate than using the word "condo-dwellers" or "homeowners" to describe any group of people with different challenges and stories.

Originally published in the #OccupyPortland Interfaith Guild of Chaplains, on Nov. 10, 2011.

Russia Today: Occupying Lakewood

2011-12-09T09:33:00.001-08:00

The C Word: No, we're not camping, or are we?

2011-12-07T18:12:00.003-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

There is a proposal floating around in #OccupyPortland:

1. STOP USING THE WORD CAMP/ENCAMPMENT.
Why:
This is NOT about a camp, the tents are NOT for camping, they are for PROTESTING. We are protected by our constitution to exercise our rights to dissent against the government our grievances. These people who are down there, which just so happens to include homeless people who have no where else to go but to Occupy for help, are there to protest day and night. "Eviction" never really exist. There's only discrimination against Occupier for shedding truth to the world. Tell me, half a billion people are wrong in doing this.
To camp would and could be classified as recreational. To protest is not. Under that respect, we are protected by the first amendment as has been stated. Maybe because are throwing out the word camp and encampment loosely, but this is not true. OWS used tents to "camp" outside because they needed a place to rest and take turn protesting days and nights and weeks on end. This is a protest, not a camp. Please stop using that word, think twice before you do, and remind others.

Many social and political movements go through various phases. Too often, movements that began with radicalism and novel, out-of-the-box thinking become institutionalized and more "mainstream" out of expediency, and while so doing, the movements often discard certain undesirable elements that are the most hated or attacked by the movements' opponents. For example, at the onset of the gay rights movement, it was drag queens and transvestite sex workers who blazed the trail by fighting back a police raid of the Stonewall Inn; in years following, however, most gay rights organizations distanced themselves from any transgression of, or deviation from, traditional sex roles in order to present a message that gays are just like everyone else except for whom they sleep with. Likewise feminist movements saw lesbians as the "lavender menace" at one point.

It therefore repeats the error of social movement history when the Occupy movement attempts to discard the unhoused population, viewing encampment as a liability or even worse, a distraction.

Since the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street, camping is an integral part of this movement both symbolically and practically.

Symbolically, the tent cities became an icon of the Occupy movement worldwide. Within them, the Occupiers successfully demonstrated a vision of a different kind of world free from greed-based ethos of Wall Street. Furthermore, the tents were a visible protest against the banking and real estate industry that have converted our basic human rights to shelters into a lucrative commodity subject to investment and speculation, instead of guaranteeing one's right to housing regardless of one's ability to pay.

The practical implication of the Occupy encampments is even more important, however. This is not talked about very often.

A free society depends on civic engagement. Yet, civic engagement occurs only when most people's basic needs are met. This is why an existence of a large middle-class population is important to ensure human rights, political freedom, and civil liberties. People who are barely scraping by, whose days and hours are almost entirely consumed by survival, do not have time or mental capacity for looking at bigger pictures beyond their immediate needs -- and thus do not participate in the community. This is why brutal dictatorships thrive in extremely poor countries.

What we, the Occupy movement, have accomplished in our encampments is significant for this reason. For the first time in perhaps decades if not centuries, people who experienced extreme poverty and lack of housing are at the forefront of this historic political and social movement -- many of whom, the mainstream society and the powers-that-be despise as "street kids," "bums" and "winos," are taking active ownership and leadership roles in this movement and demanding changes and calling for a revolution.

And this is what scares the hell out of the politicians, business interests and elites the most. This is why the encampment invites the most brutal repression and violent response by the government officials. This is why they have tried to cast the Occupy movement as being magnets for the "homeless" and unfortunately many Occupiers fell into this trap of feeling like they have to discard and scapegoat the unhoused people instead of directing their indignation where it belongs: the 1 Percent.

At our Occupations, the "street kids" and the "homeless" were never our charity cases. They were our equals -- and often times some of the most hard-working, competent and efficient leaders organizing actions, events and committees.

This is why charity executives and career social workers -- and even many Christian clergypeople -- were afraid of the Occupy movement. Unlike in their perceptions, we did not create artificial and oppressive "social boundaries" between one group of Occupiers and another group of Occupiers. Unlike Christians, as well-meaning and compassionate they may be, we did never call the unhoused Occupiers "the least of these." They are our equals, and our leaders in this movement of leaders. They are never "the least" of anything.

As a New York judge has expressed, the tents and encampments are fundamental elements of the Occupiers' speech. There are reasons why we are called Occupy, not March or Picket. If we are to occupy, then we've got to occupy. A "camp" does not always mean recreational, any more than Camp David is a recreational area, and boot camp a recreational activity. This is a camp of resistance and revolution.

While it could be said that our tents are not for "camping", we also must keep in mind that we encountered little opposition even from government officials -- as long as there was a perception that we are mostly a group of middle-class people who voluntarily decided to sleep outside in tents; as soon as the mainstream media began reporting that there are more "homeless" in the Occupations, that was when attacks and smear campaigns began. Anti-Occupy rhetoric has been, in this sense, driven primarily by anti-"homeless" hate and prejudice.

For some reason, in America particularly, there is a hostility towards those who conduct basic life-sustaining activities in public space. Perhaps due to the so-called "Protestant work ethic," sleeping in public encounters scorns and hostilities, even an arrest. Yet, activities such as eating and sleeping are among the most universal, most peaceful, and most non-violent activities everyone does everywhere on earth. Yet, the political and economic powers-that-be hate to see people doing those in public -- especially when it is not converted into a privilege tied to corporate profits.

For all these reasons, we must aim for keeping encampments as integral and vital foci for this movement. Resist temptations, both from within and without, to turn "camp" into a dirty four-letter word.

Reframing the Freedom of Assembly

2011-12-06T09:21:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary

Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

One main argument made on behalf of the Occupy movement is that encampment, including erection of structures such as tents, is an integral part of the Occupy's freedom of speech, and therefore it is a constitutionally protected activity that stands above any municipal ordinances which the constitutions trump.

There has been a slogan: "The First Amendment is our permit." This statement is both untrue and misleading, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of constitutional law in an Anglo-Saxon common law system. In the jurisdictions under the British legal influence, Oregon included, the constitution is never intended to grant rights to individuals. Rather, the constitution limits the state from exercising unlimited power and therefore dictates what the state can or cannot do. This stands in contrast with most constitutions of civil law nations, which specifically grants rights outlined in their constitutions. This comes from a historical difference in understanding the rights of people. In the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, humans naturally possess inherent and inalienable rights, which was traditionally thought of as "God-given"; on the other hand, in the Continental legal tradition, such rights are gifts from the government. Whether the Anglo-Saxon constitutional law is superior to the Continental constitutional theory is another question. The flip-side of this is that in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, there is no express guarantee of fundamental human rights enshrined in the constitution. Many defenders of the Anglo-Saxon constitutional theory make a distinction between "positive rights" and "negative rights"; and that for the state to constitutionally guarantee basic human rights such as food, housing, education and healthcare would inevitably trample on someone else's rights (the positive rights), and therefore the constitution needs to only guarantee the negative rights (the rights not to be ____ by the state).

Hence, to speak of the First Amendment as our "permit" we demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutions of Oregon and of the United States of America, and also imply that our rights are given by the almighty state and thus can also be restricted and revoked by the very same state apparatus (such as police). Permit, by its very definition, is a privilege that is controlled by those who issue the permit. Permit generally grants exceptions to prohibitions under specifically prescribed conditions.

What then, does it mean to say that the Occupy movement is exercising its freedom of speech and assembly?

In reality, the state has many ways to limit, abridge and curtail such freedoms. One good example is the cases of far-right tax resisters, many of whom belonging to "sovereign citizens" movement and some to militiamen movement. Many of them claim that paying taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, or even obtaining a Social Security Number, violates their freedom of religion. Others also claim that what they do -- such as teaching and helping others to commit tax fraud or serve bogus legal papers to state agencies -- is a political free speech. Yet, courts after courts have rejected such arguments and many of them now spend time in federal prisons.

The bottom line, which most Occupiers also agree on a very different level, is this: Individual liberties are not unlimited, and that to be a community and to live among other people, often individual liberties must be limited in order to ensure what may be the best for the most of the people. This is clearly demonstrated in the Occupy movement's own collectivist governance and consensus-driven General Assembly.

Therefore it is not sufficient for the Occupiers to claim that the freedom of speech and assembly is the carte blanche to do whatever they please and in the end alienate the increasing number of the 99 percent who are now fed up with unreasonable disruptions caused by some of the radicalized Occupiers.

If encampment is an integral aspect of the Occupy movement, which I concur wholeheartedly, then a strong link must be made between the action and tactical decision of employing tents and camping, and our political and social messages. Although many supporters of the Occupy movement may disagree and are indeed moving away from encampment as a model, one cannot deny the fact that the presence of very visible camps at the heart of major cities is what brought us to where we are now in a very short time.

One of the potential ways to link the Occupation camps to the messages of Occupy is rather powerful: just as Gandhi made his own salt in defiance of the salt monopoly law, and just as the Boston Tea Party threw cases of imported tea in protest of the Tea Act, the Occupiers can make a strong, definitive point linking the tents and encampments with a couple of issues.

The tent represents our rights to fundamental human needs, which include food, shelter and clothing, which are now becoming increasingly difficult for more people to secure due to the bad economic policies and foreclosure crisis. The tent also brings to the forefront visibility the increasing number of unhoused people, many of them having lost homes due to their own or their landlords' foreclosures.
The tent also represents our declaration of independence from the system that exploits us financially, that has made us serfs to landlords, real estate speculators, bankers, and dead-end low-wage jobs (if any to begin with).

Making a clear statement as for why we occupy public spaces, in tents, around-the-clock, is important for this movement. It is not sufficient to say "the First Amendment is our permit"; in fact, this statement also ironically overlooks the fact that it is the big corporate interest that also successfully claimed that corporations have a legal personhood (the gist of the Citizens United case), and therefore, their political contributions are part of the political speech protected by the First Amendment. In Portland, Oregon, businesses are free to advertise on billboards (based on the First Amendment) while artists must go through lengthy process to receive an approval from the city to paint a mural. Time after time, big corporate interest has also used the First Amendment as a "permit" for doing many things the Occupy movement now decries.

For your health and safety: a government dishonesty and deception

2011-12-05T15:39:00.001-08:00

a commentary
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I am from the government and I'm here to help." -- Ronald Reagan

As the Occupy movement exposes the excess of Wall Street greed and associated government corruption, it has unwittingly also exposed what many conservatives and American libertarians (often denigrated by the classic European-style libertarians as "anarcho-capitalists") have long said for decades: the excessive reach of nonsensical government regulations that forbid people from doing anything independently of the state. From early on, the Occupiers faced hostility and violence from the government officials as they set up encampments and functional autonomy the encampments represented in word and deed. The government often cited obscure park regulations, fire codes, health regulations, and building codes to continuously harass and persecute the Occupiers, and ultimately, using "health and safety" -- ostensibly of the Occupiers themselves -- as a pretext to launch a nationwide coordinated paramilitary assault on major Occupations across America. In so doing, the government displays contempt for the Occupiers' ingenuity -- and efficiency -- in providing for basic human needs and human rights without corrupt bureaucracy or wasted public funds: cooking for and feeding thousands in a makeshift field kitchen, and creating safe sleeping spaces and community spaces in tents and other low-cost structures are somehow extremely threatening to the government officials that they must act with militancy, barbarism and complete disregard for civility, human dignity and even the very health and safety. It speaks volume to the effectiveness of the Occupations worldwide that camping is the most threatening aspect of this movement and thus faces the greatest degree of hostility from the state.

Indeed, "we are from the government and we're here to help"; and thank you for protecting us from ourselves.

The flimsy claim that the government officials actually care about our health and safety is easily proven false by merely looking at their own antics.

It is widely known that chemical weapons such as pepper sprays, as well as "non-lethal" weapons such as TASER, are extremely hazardous to health and can cause long-term damages and sometimes even death. While they are eager to speak of "health and safety concerns" on the mainstream media and their own propaganda machine, neither their weapons of assault nor items such as handcuffs and plastic flexi-cuffs meet even the rudimentary standard of occupational safety and health regulations they themselves are required to follow and impose on others.

In Portland, Oregon, the Portland Parks & Recreation officials and the police conditionally permitted the Occupiers to sleep in the Shemanski Park after its 9:01 p.m. closing time; provided that they do not erect structures such as tents, and -- read this -- do not sleep in a sleeping bag (however, it would be permissible if one slept on top of that sleeping bag). As they spoke, the outside temperature in downtown Portland was 28 degrees Fahrenheit (-2.2 degrees Celsius). The current weather forecast predicts the low temperatures during the coming days to be around 31 to 35 degrees.

On Saturday, Dec. 3, the Portland parks and recreation director Mike Abbaté issued an "emergency order" to close all South Park Blocks at 7:45 p.m., after the Occupiers took over the Shemanski Park and erected a small number of tents there. While no one has ever seen an actual copy of this emergency order, according to the Portland City Code 20.12.190 states that the director may declare an emergency closure of a park "[i]n case of an emergency, or in case where life or property are endangered" or if "whenever it is in the interest of public health or safety to do so." While many unhoused people do indeed sleep in city parks in downtown Portland, notwithstanding the prohibition thereof, this has been perhaps the first time a park has been closed using this emergency decree (not even the Chapman and Lownsdale Parks were closed under this section). It is, to say the least, an overkill. The city code empowering the parks director to use this authority is clearly intended for real emergencies such as natural disasters or sewage overflows.

The police spokesman, Robert King, said the police bureau can tolerate "low-impact camping" such as those sleeping in doorways and under bridges. However, it is precisely this kind of camping that most local business owners do not like and complain. Likewise, this "low-impact camping" exposes people to elements, leading to a myriad of health problems including contagious diseases such as influenza and pneumonia, which they can in turn spread as they utilize "homeless service" facilities as well as public libraries and transit vehicles.

How is this possibly for anyone's health and safety? It is now obviously clear that whenever the government officials claim "health and safety" as a pretext for anything, they lie.

Occupation: Looking from a different angle

2011-12-05T15:04:00.001-08:00

an analysis
Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

Occupation (n.) [ /ɑkjupe(ɪ)ʃən/]

An activity or task with which one occupies oneself; usually specifically the productive activity, service, trade, or craft for which one is regularly paid.
The act, process or state of possessing a place.
The control of a country or region by a hostile army.

In general, occupation is a hostile act of war. It is also an act that is, inherently, oppressive towards the existing populations that existed in the occupied territories in prior to the occupation. The occupying forces usually need not be subject to laws or regulations of the territories that are being occupied, and if they do, the occupying forces and their civil affairs division have nearly unlimited power to enact changes or to abolish any aspect of the laws and regulations.

The genius of the #Occupy movement to deliberately choose this word -- occupation -- is significant. It recognizes that common people are fighting back against the imperialist oppressors and re-claiming the commons. The OWS did not call itself "Picket Wall Street" nor "March on Wall Street"; rather it is called Occupy Wall Street. It is a collective declaration that the legitimacy of whatever the de facto claim to sovereignty the United States of America makes is now put on question.

In this sense, it is also meaningful to consider the Occupation and related police repressions in recent weeks. In history of warfare, an occupation requires a persistent effort and thoughtful strategic and tactical decisions. No occupation if any has succeeded in one attempt, without any form of resistance or hostility. The police in the Occupy movement is the insurgent forces, paid off by the corrupt influences, staging violent and immoral resistance, and it is unsurprising to see this insurgent resistance intensifies.

The insurgent, as in any other parts of the world, makes some form of claim to sovereign authority, and fights back because this claim is now being challenged and there is an imminent potential that it will soon lose that claim.

In recent world history, a successful change is enacted only when the resistance break ranks and defects on their own. The rank-and-file enemy combatants are the ultimate enforcers of wills the enemy possesses. Whether it was the border guards of East Germany, or the Russian soldiers who defected while under order to defend the dying Soviet Union, revolutions succeed when they cross the line and come to our side.

The weapon the Occupy movement possesses is a power to transform people's conscience, and a transformation of conscience occurs when the soldiers on the other side realize their own wrongs and decide that they can no longer serve their master -- essentially waking up from the conditioning and brainwash they received in the past in order to defend and uphold their oath.

Re-Occupation: a potential conflict between tactics and principles?

2011-12-03T12:02:00.001-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

a commentary

Sarah-Andrea Morrigan

Here we go again.

This afternoon, in a couple of hours, the Occupy Portland contingent will march from the Salmon Street Springs to a yet-to-be-known park for what is stated as a two-week re-occupation.

Portland mayor Sam Adams has issued a statement in response, essentially implying that all park regulations will be enforced by the city police bureau, which means neither tents nor camping will be tolerated. Adams cites the budget issues in this economic climate, saying that the city can no longer afford passively allowing another encampment that would further drain the municipal funds. Adams, ever tactful in treading the line between the popular support of the Occupy movement and the ever-increasing pressure from the local developers, businesses and their special interest lobby, writes, "I believe that the encampments have become a distraction from addressing these national issues."

However, Adams comes across as if he is trying to say that the City of Portland and its public policy are somehow unrelated to the national issues and thus Portland and its mayor are immune from the grievances expressed by the Occupiers. In reality, local issues are direct manifestations of national and global political and economic ills, and as a municipal government the City of Portland plays active roles in implementing policies mandated by the federal and state laws. The City of Portland is neither removed from these issues the Occupy movement addresses, nor is above the accusations lodged by the Occupiers. Portland is, for instance, among the top five in unhoused population. This is in part because of the city's economic policy that does not encourage job-creations, and also in part because of the laws and over-regulations that make housing unaffordable. On the state level, Oregon forbids cities and counties from establishing rent control. Rental housing market is largely unregulated and lacks virtually any administrative oversight. On the other hand, building codes, zoning regulations and permit process make it prohibitively difficult and expensive to create more inexpensive dwelling units -- while routinely exempting out-of-town developers from the very same regulations to build condos and office buildings that would in turn displace low-income tenants.

Having said this, is a re-occupation now a good idea?

Whereas the first occupation in the two downtown parks had my whole-hearted support, I have a very mixed feeling about this re-occupation.

After the attempted short-lived occupation of the Jamison Square, and the more recent "park-u-pation" of a South Park Block which fizzled out shortly after the 9 p.m. curfew, the action committee should have wised up and came up with a more creative solution. If one repeats the same thing and expects a different outcome, one may as well be rightly accused of idiocy. The parks are not subject to the state and city laws governing "illegal encampment" and therefore campers in a park have no protection. At the very least, the action committee could have chosen other, non-park, public land such as an open field near RiverPlace adjacent to Harbor Drive.

The Occupy movement, I grant, must continue encampment in some form. It is an important part of its message both symbolically and practically; likewise, the encampment serves as a living demonstration of what a society can be without a greed-driven system -- while also empowering and creating a safer space for many unhoused people. I also grant that the Oregon constitutional law provides a much greater latitude in defining what a protected "speech" is, than the federal First Amendment, and that a "freedom of speech" does not merely mean a freedom of opinion, but also of assembly, expression, and conscience. However, constitutional civil liberties are certainly not the magic wildcard to give license for any and all acts. For example, the freedom of religion in Oregon does not (or no longer) allow members of the Followers of Christ Church to fully exercise their beliefs against medicine. Likewise, an "Islamist" or "jihadist" cannot hide behind the constitutional protection while committing criminal acts. Whether one would like to admit or not, the judiciary has always recognized that there is a limit to freedom, when that freedom contravenes either someone else's rights or the "public (state) interest."

The lawyers working with the Occupy Portland are yet to proceed with the legal action approved by the General Assembly. Hence the city can, and will, and is ready, to come down on any new encampment. If the new encampment is done in solidarity with, and for the interest of, the unhoused Portland Occupiers, then how would a specter of constant riot police threat make the re-occupation a safe space for them? Additionally, the weather forecasters are predicting a stretch of below-freezing nights and mornings for the coming days. With no structures and open fire permitted, per park regulation, there would be a serious question as for the practicality of this new re-occupation.

What the Occupy movement in Portland needs is a creative and innovative tactical decision, always weighing its merits, impact, possible consequences, and effectiveness. It must exploit every possible legal and regulatory loophole in a most ingenuous manner, so as to beat the institution in its own game while exposing the absurdity of the institution. Herding a large group of overly optimistic Occupiers into another park where they will inevitably meet the wrath of the paramilitary police is not, even as a yet-another-overused act of civil disobedience.

The Cascadian Journal of Occupology

How to dump Google

Related articles

Occupy's Challenge

Related articles

Class war within Occupy Portland

Occupy the Next Level

The Big Brother: from 1984 to 2014

Related articles

A controversial proposition

Occupy still?

Related articles

Share this Christmas with an Occupier!

What did the D12 port shut-down accomplish?

Related articles

Pedagogy of the Protest

The new General Assembly/Spokes Council schedule

A great analysis of Re-Occu-Fest success from a military scientist

Is Occupy movement antithetical to "real" Christianity?

Is this what democracy looks like?

A rebuttal to Commissioner Amanda Fritz

Deficiency of the "Declaration"

Call for immediate help! Solidarity!

Restoring the concept of commons - from hoarding mentality to sharing mentality

Related articles

Repost: End the anti-homeless hate, prejudice and discrimination: an emerging take-away from #OccupyPortland

Russia Today: Occupying Lakewood

The C Word: No, we're not camping, or are we?

Related articles

Reframing the Freedom of Assembly

Related articles

For your health and safety: a government dishonesty and deception

Occupation: Looking from a different angle

Re-Occupation: a potential conflict between tactics and principles?

Related articles