This Is What A Police State Looks Like (Redux)

By now, it should be clear that the Authorities have been busy during the Occupy semi-hiatus over the winter. Oh yes. Oh. My. Yes.

The other day, the Oakland City Attorney sued one of the local Occupy activists for vandalism for acts he is alleged to have committed in Oakland on the night of General Strike Day, November 2. Cesar is one of the gentlest and most generous people I know. He says that on that night, he was not committing vandalism in Oakland at all. He was trying to protect himself from police munitions fire by "liberating" a piece of plywood covering a window to use as a shield. Cesar was arrested that night for vandalism and failure to disperse, but he has not been charged criminally. The video evidence the city says they will produce more than likely is ambiguous about what actually happened, but it's obvious the City of Oakland is using this case as a weapon to keep "outside agitators" out of Oakland. Message: if people from elsewhere show up in Oakland and something happens, the outsiders will be charged for damages. Sort of like the Hotel Tax, I guess.

Not content with merely charging outsiders for damages, the Alameda County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against a number of UC Berkeley students and one professor for their participation in the iconic protest demonstrations at Sproul Hall on November 9, 2011. It's worse than the Daily Cal reported above. Nancy O'Malley -- the now notorious Alameda County DA -- has charged a total of ten students who participated in the protest at Sproul Hall, some of them charged after the UCPD gained access to their records at the University medical center where they went for treatment of the injuries sustained when they were beaten by police. Only two or three of those charged by the DA were arrested that day. One of them was Celeste Langan who is seen dressed in purple, at the extreme left of the video at the beginning, "resisting" arrest.



http://youtu.be/kNHXuf6qJas

Cute. Her arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow, I believe. Should be quite a show.

These are links to raw footage of some of what was going on that day at UC Berkeley.

http://youtu.be/NSat-nRefXY (Langan is seen in this video, the second person thrown to the ground and trussed up by police at about 3:40; at the end of this video, she is shown being hoisted up and starts to be led away)

http://youtu.be/cEcqsLyX-vI (In this video, which shows nonsequential events, Langan appears at about 2:17 being led away. The determination of the students in the face of what was seen at that time to be outrageous police violence is impressive.)

http://youtu.be/SN7WOsvepUg (This video is sort of the Highlight Reel; early on a female likely Cal student is heard repeating "You're hurting him!" while a protester is being beaten nearby. She is then heard saying to someone "That's how we train them to fucking stop us. We pay for them to fucking hurt us." Which is absolutely true. The UC police and the Alameda County Deputies were actually training not far from this very site a month or so before -- I've read it was with Israeli trainers -- to conduct this kind of action. Celeste Langan is shown in complete shock being led away in flexicuffs at about 3:20.)

The picture used in the article about Israelification of Occupy suppression is of course of the UC Davis pepper spray incident that happened a week after the Cal police riot. After numerous delays, an official report on the incident was supposed to be released on March 6, but the UC Davis police officers union sued to prevent it and got a TRO which is currently in effect. They claim that release of the report will compromise the rights of officers who might be named therein. This matter is also supposed to be heard in court tomorrow.

The NYPD is notorious for spying on various suspect groups including Muslims and Occupy Wall Street, but now, according to In These Times, they've gone further than usual by arresting people for "thought crimes" or "pre-crimes." This practice was more-or-less institutionalized during the RNC convention in St. Paul in 2008 prior to which and during which dozens of arrests were made and property was seized of people who were suspected of making preparations to protest. There is apparently a grand jury empaneled in Chicago that has been trying to develop terrorism charges against some of those who were arrested in Minneapolis and St. Paul four years ago, but many of those subpoenaed have refused to cooperate.

This is a compilation video of some of what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul prior to and during the Republican convention.



Notice anything? The exact tactics have been used and are being used against Occupy. At the time, in 2008, what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul was seen as way over the top. The rallies and marches and protests during the convention were peaceful, even routine in the context, yet the police were on some kind of hair-trigger/steroid alert against the protesters constantly -- even before the convention, and they have stayed that way afterwards -- and they behaved with what was at that time shocking brutality and over kill. People were being kettled and arrested en masse -- whether or not they had anything to do with protesting -- hundreds were held for days, they were not allowed any sort of contact with the outside, nor did were they allowed medical attention for injuries or other conditions; people were arrested for doing nothing at all, but merely because they had been identified as "potential" protesters. Flash bangs and tear gas were liberally employed against nonviolent protests. Police brutality was commonplace. It was a war zone in which only one side -- the police -- was fighting. The protests were nonviolent. The police, however, employed what were at that time considered extreme levels of violence against them.

And it's going on in much the same way against Occupy.

What gives?

The political conventions are what's called National Special Security Events, during which, essentially, the Constitution is suspended. During National Special Security Events, a form of martial law can be and often is imposed; violent and otherwise unethical or illegal means are typically used to suppress protest. While I've written about National Special Security Events and the nature of policing during them, I'm not at all sure that many Americans actually understand what is going on.

More likely, they see the suppression and assume it is due to something the protesters have done, which is simply not the case. The suppression tactics and the "threat display" aspects of officials are policy during these events. The policy doesn't change based on what the protesters do or don't do. The policy is to suppress, to prevent, and to tightly control the public -- no matter what they do.

Since the October 25 assault on Occupy Oakland, it's looked more and more like the Occupy Movement has been categorized as something that requires NSSE-type suppression. The clue came much earlier, however, when fully armored up riot squads were deployed night after night against a handful of local protesters who were peacefully engaged in civil disobedience. Night after night after night, dozens of riot cops (sometimes up to 70 or 80), squad cars, paddy wagons and so forth were dispatched to round up ten or two or, on one occasion, one protester sitting on the sidewalk refusing to "disperse" at plaza "closing time." It was an absurd goon show that became a joke. But not a funny one. Eventually, even the police recognized how foolish they looked in their little riot get-ups and their ridiculously over produced arrest-theater, and scaled back their overkill, and when the hundreds of thousands of dollars it was costing was released, they stopped doing it altogether. The DA refused to prosecute, and in the end, all the charges against demonstrators were dropped, although there has been an attempt to assess "fees" against those who were arrested multiple times (typically around $300).

As someone pointed out, had the police used their discretion and not engaged in this nonsense to begin with, there wouldn't have been any costs to the city at all. Duh. But no. Civil disobedience must be suppressed. Violently in too many cases.

But even when there isn't police violence during Occupy suppression actions, the official intent is to intimidate and disable. For example:

Occupy Miami raided by SWAT teams (VIDEO) (h/t teri49 in comments)

Objectively, this is just insane. The official fear level about the Occupy movement -- and apparently any other civil disobedience -- has reached a fever pitch. The fact that people are so pissed off and no longer fear saying so seems to have hit a raw nerve among the ruling classes and their enforcers.

Bones are thrown to the masses from time to time, but it doesn't stop the protest and actions. Suppression doesn't stop it; in fact, action seems to be on an increasing curve as more and more activists pick up on the Occupy movement's strategies.

This is not going away, despite the institutionalization of the Police State -- which looks to be full-time and permanent now. The ruling class and its bought and paid for government and enforcers are in a pre-panic state. They do not know how to suppress it, and they don't know how to fully control it. But they don't want to actually listen the voices of the People and do the right thing, either. They still don't think they have to. After all, they have NDAA and HR 347.

We got nothin', right?

We'll see about that.

New Speak At Berkeley

The incident depicted in the video above was one of several incidents of police brutality associated with the occupation of Wheeler Hall at UC Berkeley in November of 2009. Most of the officers involved in this incident appear to be Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies. There were similar incidents at many campuses of the University of California during the fall and winter of 2009 and 2010. To say they foreshadowed what was to come in 2011 is putting it mildly.

By now news must have spread around the world that the UC Berkeley Police Officers Association, the union representing 60+ UC Berkeley Police Officers, has "officially" responded to the outrage of campus students and (some) administration and faculty at the gross brutality of the UC Police on and after the events in and around Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley on November 9, 2011.

They have come up with an Open Letter, which I feel free to reproduce here:

An Open Letter to UC Berkeley Students, Faculty, Administration & Regents from the UC Berkeley Police Officers’ Association

It is our hope that this letter will help open the door to a better understanding between UC Berkeley police and the University community.

The UC Berkeley Police Officers’ Association, representing approximately 64 campus police officers, understands your frustration over massive tuition hikes and budget cuts, and we fully support your right to peacefully protest to bring about change.

It was not our decision to engage campus protesters on November 9th. We are now faced with “managing” the results of years of poor budget planning. Please know we are not your enemy.

A video clip gone viral does not depict the full story or the facts leading up to an actual incident. Multiple dispersal requests were given in the days and hours before the tent removal operation. Not caught on most videos were scenes of protesters hitting, pushing, grabbing officers’ batons, fighting back with backpacks and skateboards.

The UC Berkeley Police Officers’ Association supports a full investigation of the events that took place on November 9th, as well as a full review of University policing policies. That being said, we do not abrogate responsibility for the events on November 9th.

UC Berkeley police officers want to better serve students and faculty members and we welcome ideas for how we can have a better discourse to avoid future confrontations. We are open to all suggestions on ways we can improve our ability to better protect and serve the UC Berkeley community.

As your campus police, we also have safety concerns that we ask you to consider.

Society has changed significantly since 1964 when peaceful UC Berkeley student protesters organized a 10-hour sit-in in Sproul Hall and 10,000 students held a police car at bay – spawning change and the birth of our nation’s Free Speech Movement.

However proud we can all be of UC Berkeley’s contribution to free speech in America, no one can deny this: Our society in 2011 has become an extremely more violent place to live and to protect. No one understands the effects of this violence more than those of us in law enforcement.

Disgruntled citizens in this day and age express their frustrations in far more violent ways – with knives, with guns and sometimes by killing innocent bystanders. Peaceful protests can, in an instant, turn into violent rioting, ending in destruction of property or worse – the loss of lives. Police officers and innocent citizens everywhere are being injured, and in some instances, killed.

In the back of every police officer’s mind is this: How can I control this incident so it does not escalate into a seriously violent, potentially life-threatening event for all involved?

While students were calling the protest “non-violent,” the events on November 9th were anything but nonviolent. In previous student Occupy protests, protesters hit police officers with chairs, bricks, spitting, and using homemade plywood shields as weapons – with documented injuries to officers.

At a moment’s notice, the November 9th protest at UC Berkeley could have turned even more violent than it did, much like the Occupy protests in neighboring Oakland.

Please understand that by no means are we interested in making excuses. We are only hoping that you will understand and consider the frustrations we experience daily as public safety officers sworn to uphold the law. It is our job to keep protests from escalating into violent events where lives could be endangered.

We sincerely ask for your help in doing this.

Like you, we have been victims to budget cuts that affect our children and our families in real ways. We, too, hold on to the dream of being able to afford to send our children and grandchildren to a four-year university. Like you, we understand and fully support the need for change and a redirection of priorities.

To students and faculty: As 10,000 students surrounded a police car on campus in 1964, protesters passed the hat to help pay for repairs to the police car as a show of respect. Please peacefully respect the rules we are required to enforce – for all our safety and protection. Please respect the requests of our officers as we try to do our jobs.

To the University Administration and Regents: Please don’t ask us to enforce your policies then refuse to stand by us when we do. Your students, your faculty and your police – we need you to provide real leadership.

We openly and honestly ask the UC Berkeley community for the opportunity to move forward together, peacefully and without further incident – in better understanding of one another. Thank you for listening.

What. A. Crock.

But this is exactly the kind of nonsense that gets produced by police departments all over the country and by the military of this great nation. Every. Single. Day.

It's an art form. It's a science. It's... a lie.

And Official Lies like this are part of the reason why there is a revolt-turning-into-revolution going on by necessity.

For years, Americans have been routinely subjected to Official Lies like this. At first they were greeted with a sort of stunned silence. "This can't be happening." Then it was outrage. "This can't STILL be happening!" Then it was indifference. "There they go again." And now I think we're getting back close to outrage.

This open letter is one of the more provocative products of the genre, however, so let's explore its New Speak for a while:



It is our hope that this letter will help open the door to a better understanding between UC Berkeley police and the University community.

We understand, of course, that UC Berkeley police and the University community are separate entities altogether, don't we? After reading that introduction, we should understand it. OK?

The UC Berkeley Police Officers’ Association, representing approximately 64 campus police officers, understands your frustration over massive tuition hikes and budget cuts, and we fully support your right to peacefully protest to bring about change.

Actually the argument with the UC Berkeley (and other UC) Police is not over tuition hikes and budget cuts; it is over their consistent employment of gross acts of brutality against students, faculty and staff who dare to use their supposed "right of peaceful protest."

It was not our decision to engage campus protesters on November 9th. We are now faced with “managing” the results of years of poor budget planning. Please know we are not your enemy.

This doesn't even make sense. But let's take it for what it's worth. If the UC Berkeley Police did not decide to "engage" (heh) protesters on November 9, somebody else must have made the decision for them; if they are nothing but mindless robots unable to think for themselves and decide for themselves, then we really should be told who is flipping their switches on and off. Meanwhile, their inability to decide for themselves has nothing to do with poor management of budgets. Sorry. Doesn't wash. As for whether the UC Berkeley police are the "enemy," who said they were?

A video clip gone viral does not depict the full story or the facts leading up to an actual incident. Multiple dispersal requests were given in the days and hours before the tent removal operation. Not caught on most videos were scenes of protesters hitting, pushing, grabbing officers’ batons, fighting back with backpacks and skateboards.

"A" video clip? Oh dear no. There are dozens of them, not just one, and they show what happened -- over time, it wasn't just one incident -- from many different angles and perspectives. Nobody denies that there were "requests" -- read: orders -- to disperse. That's not the issue. "Tent removal operation." Excuse me, operation? As if it were a military campaign? That the police had no decision-making power over? It just... happened? I think not. Further, there are videos which show students, faculty, and staff defending themselves from the baton blows of the police on the Berkeley campus -- in fact, nearly every video of the "operation" shows this. Indeed, in self-defense, students, faculty and staff used whatever was at hand to protect themselves from the unwarranted blows of the officers involved. It's plainly shown in most of the videos. Protecting themselves, however, does not constitute "fighting back," except in the fevered imaginations of the police robots who busy beating the shit out of them. Not to put too fine a point on it.

The UC Berkeley Police Officers’ Association supports a full investigation of the events that took place on November 9th, as well as a full review of University policing policies. That being said, we do not abrogate responsibility for the events on November 9th.

What the hell does this even mean? "Abrogate responsibilty?" How do you do that? Do they perhaps mean "deny responsibility?" And got caught up in legalese? When one "abrogrates," one repeals, annuls, or renounces. But that aside (was it a deliberate distraction, a shiny object sure to get the smart alecs at Berkeley into a frenzy?) the support of a "full investigation" is welcome. The only thing is that in a "full investigation" by their lights, only the police version of events is to be allowed.

UC Berkeley police officers want to better serve students and faculty members and we welcome ideas for how we can have a better discourse to avoid future confrontations. We are open to all suggestions on ways we can improve our ability to better protect and serve the UC Berkeley community.

Of course. Ever reasonable, aren't they? I'll just file that in the "Can't we all just get along?" cabinet. Sure. Whatever.

As your campus police, we also have safety concerns that we ask you to consider.

Of course, since we're being reasonable and all.

Society has changed significantly since 1964 when peaceful UC Berkeley student protesters organized a 10-hour sit-in in Sproul Hall and 10,000 students held a police car at bay – spawning change and the birth of our nation’s Free Speech Movement.


Oh God, they dare to bring up THAT? "Our Nation's" Free Speech Movement? Hello? Is anybody home? A ten-hour sit in? Oh dear, this is just stupid. The actions by the FSM went on for MONTHS and they have reverberated for decades. Yes, society has changed. That was the point. But clearly it hasn't changed enough for students, faculty and staff to nonviolently resist police on campus without getting the shit beat out of them or chemical agents being used against them.

However proud we can all be of UC Berkeley’s contribution to free speech in America, no one can deny this: Our society in 2011 has become an extremely more violent place to live and to protect. No one understands the effects of this violence more than those of us in law enforcement.

Actually, I think there are plenty of people who would deny that our society in 2011 is "an extremely more violent place to live." On the other hand, many would assert that violence on campus is almost all the result of a much greater level of police brutality than was the case in 1964. And it is that consistent level of brutality that is being objected to. Though you would never know it from the presentation of the Officers Association. "Batons? What batons? We were just protecting and serving by making sure the protesters were safe. And secure."


Disgruntled citizens in this day and age express their frustrations in far more violent ways – with knives, with guns and sometimes by killing innocent bystanders. Peaceful protests can, in an instant, turn into violent rioting, ending in destruction of property or worse – the loss of lives. Police officers and innocent citizens everywhere are being injured, and in some instances, killed.

This has to do with what, exactly? Particularly what does a statement like this have to do with what was going on on campus -- this campus or any other which has been subjected to the brutal ministrations of the UC police -- on November 9? Describe -- and produce evidence of -- any such knives, guns, killings, riot, or destruction of property on any UC campus during the recent protests that isn't sourced directly to the police themselves. They are the ones who are beating people and using chemical agents against them, they are the ones with weapons -- and who use them -- and they are the ones who destroy property. Again and again. It is not the protesters and demonstrators who do this. It is the police. Over and over and over again.

In the back of every police officer’s mind is this: How can I control this incident so it does not escalate into a seriously violent, potentially life-threatening event for all involved?

It is the police who escalate incidents in to "seriously violent, potentially life-threatening event[s] for all involved" -- and they have done so over and over and over again, not just on UC campuses, but all over the country, causing hundreds of injuries (some of them life-threatening) and thousands of unnecessary arrests. This is being done by the police, not by the protesters. But you would never know it from this statement.

While students were calling the protest “non-violent,” the events on November 9th were anything but nonviolent. In previous student Occupy protests, protesters hit police officers with chairs, bricks, spitting, and using homemade plywood shields as weapons – with documented injuries to officers.

This is a straight out and bald faced LIE. The protest at UC Berkeley on November 9 was a classic example of non-violent resistance. When police spokesmouths and UC Birgeneau said otherwise, and in fact characterized the non-violent resistance of the students, faculty and staff as "not nonviolent" or actually a form of "violence," they were righteously ridiculed all over the world. Not only were they wrong, they were deliberately wrong and attempting to deceive. In other words, lying. They might have got away with it before the days of viral video. Now they can't. But instead of acknowledging that simple truth, the UC Berkeley Police Association chooses (well, since they are only mindless robots, their choice in the matter is debatable...) to lie again by claiming that the protest was "anything but nonviolent," and to assert the lie that other "student Occupy protests" -- where and when unmentioned -- involved various hazards to officers. It is simply a LIE. All of it.

At a moment’s notice, the November 9th protest at UC Berkeley could have turned even more violent than it did, much like the Occupy protests in neighboring Oakland.

The only violence on the UC Berkeley campus on and after November 9, 2011, was initiated by the police. As for Oakland, that's another issue that has no direct bearing on what happened at Berkeley on November 9. The fact that the UC police would still be focused on what happened in Oakland the week before says more about these robots than it does about the students, faculty and staff at UC Berkeley.

Please understand that by no means are we interested in making excuses. We are only hoping that you will understand and consider the frustrations we experience daily as public safety officers sworn to uphold the law. It is our job to keep protests from escalating into violent events where lives could be endangered.

The UC Police -- top to bottom -- has been in the habit of creating its own frustrations and blaming them on others. This habit has become a sick joke.

We sincerely ask for your help in doing this.

Yes, well.

Like you, we have been victims to budget cuts that affect our children and our families in real ways. We, too, hold on to the dream of being able to afford to send our children and grandchildren to a four-year university. Like you, we understand and fully support the need for change and a redirection of priorities.

That's nice. Stop beating students.

To students and faculty: As 10,000 students surrounded a police car on campus in 1964, protesters passed the hat to help pay for repairs to the police car as a show of respect. Please peacefully respect the rules we are required to enforce – for all our safety and protection. Please respect the requests of our officers as we try to do our jobs.

Stop beating students. Your efforts to change the subject and deny your own responsibility for your actions, indeed to assert your inability to make decisions, is the problem you have to deal with. Students, faculty and staff have been more than willing to help you do that. The problem is that you and your deciders have ignored if not denounced every effort to help you get over your penchant for meeting challenges with violence. It's your problem. Fix it or disband.

To the University Administration and Regents: Please don’t ask us to enforce your policies then refuse to stand by us when we do. Your students, your faculty and your police – we need you to provide real leadership.

Since nobody will actually state what the policy is with regard to non-violent student protest, there is no way to know whether you are enforcing administration policies or not. Since you can't decide on anything yourselves but are only the tools of some other, you might want to some day state what you have been told to do.

We openly and honestly ask the UC Berkeley community for the opportunity to move forward together, peacefully and without further incident – in better understanding of one another. Thank you for listening.

"Without further incident" is up to you. Since you say you can't decide anything, but are only the objects, the tools of some other power, it would be to your advantage to state clearly what you have been told to do. Since incidents you so deplore are in your power to cause and to prevent, but you say you cannot decide whether to do so or not, it seems the problems you are having are entirely due to the system within which you are operating. Once you start working with -- instead of beating up -- students, faculty and staff of the University perhaps there will be a resolution.

Until then, you're spinning lies and spinning your wheels, and by doing so, you compound the shame you have already been subjected to from around the world.

Have a nice day.

Oh. And you might want to review, once again, the report issued by the task force that looked into the police brutality surrounding the Wheeler Hall Incident a couple of years ago. Remember?

This is how the Police Review Board characterized it:

http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/6-14-10_prb-report.pdf

This is how the Administration supposedly responded:

http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/PRBfinal10-12-11.pdf

And then there's this:

http://archive.dailycal.org/data/files/prbreportjune2010.pdf

The fact is that the UC Berkeley police and their mutual aid police agencies have quite a reputation for egregious brutality, and the administration at UC Berkeley keeps skating around the problem.

As Nathan Brown has said, it's policy.

This Is Awful -- The Man Shot at UC Berkeley the Other Day Was a Student

There was no way to tell from the initial reports what happened -- except that a man had been shot at the Haas School of Business in the computer lab. He supposedly had a gun.

This is who it was:



He was a transfer student, 32 years old, from Ohlone College who had been working as a security guard and shift supervisor while attending UC Berkeley -- apparently with the intention of improving his prospects and career path.

According to reports, a woman spotted a gun in his backpack as she was riding the elevator with him. She reported it to her supervisor who called UC Police. He was located in the computer lab in the building -- where he was shot. At first, the report was that he was shot once and was wounded. Then reports came out that he was shot numerous times (9 or 10?) and had died at the hospital.

As for what really happened in that computer lab, there is supposedly at least one and possibly more video records of the incident. What they show, if anything, is unknown since as of last night, the video(s) hadn't been released.

But it is fair to be skeptical of anything anybody says about what happened, especially including what the UC Police are saying (and they have been the source of nearly all the information so far.)

To say they have a tendency to fudge the truth is to be charitable. I would remind the gentle reader of the statement of Sergeant Margo Bennett just the other day regarding "not non-violence."

"The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."

Here's a somewhat more detailed discussion of that little Gem of Police Wisdom.

And at some point, this shit has got stop.

Dignity. Justice. Community. Peace.

Meanwhile on the Left Coast

They've finally dug up Mario Savio at UC Berkeley in a somewhat belated recognition that the same site he used for his iconic speech calling on us to throw our bodies on the wheels of the machine is the focus for the current tumult at Cal.

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/15/mario-savio-and-the-free-speech-movement-47-years-later/

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/10/what-would-mario-savio-say-about-the-occupy-movement/

“There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part; and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop, and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, the people who own it, that unless you’re free the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

I find it appropriate.

There are "teach outs" going on on Sproul Plaza right now; how the strike is going, though, I have no idea. Reports are sketchy to say the least.

We'll see.

With all this chatter about non-violence, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, it is always appropriate to bring up Mario Savio on the steps of Sproul Hall.

And such iconic images as this:



Does anybody remember SDS? Well, go here:

http://studentantiwar.blogs.brynmawr.edu/

Jeebus, an anthropological study no less. Or is it archaeological?

Heh.



I like this, though (from New York):

Next Up: Berkeley

The cowards who pass for Regents of the University were supposed to hold their meeting in San Francisco tomorrow. They got a report from the UC Police that there might be some unpleasantness having to do with the recent tumult at the UC Berkeley campus -- and other things -- so they advised the Regents to postpone their meeting.

This they promptly voted to do. Can't have any unpleasantness. Ick.

This is the story in the Daily Californian.

This is the Press Release announcing their cowadice:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 14, 2011
UC Office of the President
(510) 987-9200

Announcement from UC Board of Regents leadership

The following announcement was released today (Monday, Nov. 14, 2011) by Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of California Board of Regents, Vice Chair Bruce Varner and President Mark G. Yudof:

Late last week University of California law enforcement officials came to us with concerns about credible intelligence they had collected in advance of the Board of Regents meeting, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday (Nov. 16 and 17) at the UC San Francisco Mission Bay campus.

From various sources they had received information indicating that rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with UC public safety officers were planning to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations expected to occur at the meeting.

They believe that, as a result, there is a real danger of significant violence and vandalism. They have advised us further that this violence could place at risk members of the public, students lawfully gathered to voice concerns over tuition levels and any other issues, the UCSF community, including patients, and public safety officers, UC staff and neighbors of UCSF Mission Bay.

They recommended to us, in the strongest of terms, that we cancel or postpone the meeting as scheduled.

After further consultation with these law enforcement officers, we have decided that, in fact, the most prudent course for us would be to postpone this meeting and reschedule it for another time and, possibly, an alternate venue. Failure to do so might constitute a reckless disregard of credible law enforcement intelligence. Ensuring public safety must be a top priority.

By rescheduling, it is our intent to allow the business of the University of California to go forward, but in a manner that will allow the public, including students, to express their views on issues related to the university without putting their personal safety in peril.

We will be announcing a new schedule for this meeting as soon as possible. We will not elaborate further on the law enforcement intelligence that prompted us to postpone, and we have asked our police officials to do the same.

Finally, we want to point out that the agenda for this meeting included updates from UC staff members on several initiatives that have been launched in an effort to offset state disinvestment in the university, providing alternate revenue streams beyond tuition and taxpayer support. This work will continue to go forward. Contrary to some public misperceptions, a tuition increase was never a part of the agenda for this meeting.

The arrogance -- and cowardice -- of the UC Board of Regents was legendary back in the Olden Days, but this announcement makes me believe it is even worse now than it was then.

Student Regents had a different take:

An Open Letter to Students, Administrators, Faculty, and the Regents:

The leadership of the Board of Regents has chosen to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. This letter addresses that decision, the recent protests on UC campuses, the continued defunding of public higher education by the State of California, and recent police brutality at UC Berkeley.
The State of California’s unprecedented and short-sighted divestment from public higher education is a disastrous moral and economic choice. In the short term, it hurts students. In the long term, it will hurt all Californians.

The University of California is a nationwide leader in educating students who are the first in their families to go to college, students who come from underserved communities, and first-generation students who are the children of immigrants. Collectively and through sacrifice, the State of California has built an institution that excels at providing a world-class education to students who have faced the greatest challenges to access it.

And yet the State is choosing to tear that institution down. The State of California cut the UC by $650 million in the past year, with a $100 million trigger cut likely on the way. These latest cuts come on the heels of decades of declining funding. The cost is felt first and foremost by students, who face nothing but bad choices: work multiple jobs to make ends meet, take out enormous loans that will be paid back in a terrible job market, or drop out and pursue an education somewhere cheaper or not at all. Generations of Californians attended an excellent UC at low or no cost; today, those same Californians are forcing the next generation of students to attend a university under threat, and at a high and rising cost. It is privatization of our greatest public good, and a morally bankrupt choice on the part of our citizens and our state government.

It is also a short-sighted economic choice. For decades, the University of California has fueled this state’s economic success, by driving innovation and entrepreneurship and graduating thousands of highly skilled workers into the California economy. Defunding this institution may ease our budget problems today, but doing so will bear bitter fruit for decades to come, as we become a less attractive destination for businesses and entrepreneurs. Cutting the UC hurts every Californian’s opportunity to get a well-paying job, decreases our future tax revenues, and delays or prevents entirely the research breakthroughs that advance our society and our economy.

The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support the actions of students who call attention to the privatization of public education through courageous and peaceful protest. The police violence at UC Berkeley on November 9 was reprehensible and ought to be condemned, not defended, by campus and systemwide administration. We have additional concerns about freedom of speech – on the day of the protests, a Berkeley Law student was stopped by police officers while far from the events at Sproul Plaza simply for carrying a megaphone. When she was unable to produce a student ID, she was handcuffed, placed in a squad car, and cited for a misdemeanor. Free speech and providing equitable access to education have been hallmarks of the UC and particularly UC Berkeley — by suppressing speech that advocates for education access, we do violence to two of our most cherished principles.

The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate oppose the decision to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. We understand that local law enforcement authorities recommended the meeting be postponed in the interest of public safety. However, students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that. We would support finding a way for student attendees to exercise their constitutional and moral right to protest while excluding non-student elements that raise the specter of violence and vandalism. We urge students who had made plans to travel to San Francisco for the Regents meeting to travel to Sacramento instead, and make student frustrations known to the state’s ultimate decision-makers.

To fund the University of California, the State needs revenues. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support ending Proposition 13’s treatment of corporate property taxes and ending the two-thirds supermajority requirement for raising new revenues in the state legislature. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate also support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Californians. Those at the top of California society have benefited the most from the fact that California is a vibrant, innovative, and diverse place; in times of struggle, they should give back to make sure that other Californians have the same opportunities to succeed that they did.

We hope that our fellow Regents and the administration of the UC will be forceful advocates for new revenues for state government. To not do so leaves us with only a single, cynical choice every year: submit a funding request to the State and lobby for it despite knowing Sacramento is unlikely to meet it; search internally for savings after yet another budget cut that we knew was coming; and fill the balance of our budget deficit on the backs of students, pushing those in the middle class further to the margins.

We have a responsibility to fight for an alternative. Students are leading the way. We hope that the University of California and its leadership can join students in the fight to preserve truly public higher education for all our citizens. As the Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate, we have a responsibility to be the students who partner with the Regents and the University’s top decisions-makers. We will continue to advocate from within the system for the principles and beliefs driving student energy and passion.

Alfredo Mireles
Student Regent

Jonathan Stein
Student Regent-Designate

Meanwhile, his Excellency the Chancellor of the University, has had something of a change of heart -- after students and others filed lawsuits and denounced him and the UC Police for their appalling brutality against students:

Calling videos of the demonstrations “disturbing,” Birgeneau stated that all students arrested during the protest for blocking police officers will be granted amnesty and will not face charges under the student code of conduct.

“The events of last Wednesday are unworthy of us as a university community,” Birgeneau said in the message. “Sadly, they point to the dilemma that we face in trying to prevent encampments and thereby mitigate long-term risks to the health and safety of our entire community.”

Sure. Whatever.

Tomorrow is a Day of Action throughout the UC system; there are supposed to be strikes everywhere. What will actually transpire is anyone's guess. There are plenty of students in the UC system (and the related public university systems) who are delighted to see police brutality on campus or off. The tuition hikes don't phase them a bit.

We'll see...
-------------------------

As an addendum:

As of 8:00pm PST, over 1800 people had signed the Open Letter to Chancellor Birgeneau, the UC Berkeley administration, and the UC Regents, regarding the unpleasantness of November 9, 2011, when the UC Police went on a rampage.

The Open Letter reads as follows:

We, the undersigned faculty, lecturers, and graduate student assistants—all of whom teach at Berkeley and are invested in the educational mission of this university—are outraged by the unnecessary and excessive use of violence by the police and sheriff’s deputies against peaceful protesters at UC Berkeley beginning on Wednesday, November 9, 2011.

We will not tolerate this assault on the historic legacy of free speech on this campus.

The protests on Sproul Plaza on November 9 were organized by a coalition of undergraduates, graduates, faculty, union members, and staff to clearly articulate links between the privatization of the university, the global financial crisis, the burdens of student debt, and the composition and power of the UC Regents, whose actions demonstrate a lack of concern with sustaining the public character of the UC system. The principles of these protests reach well beyond the Berkeley campus.

After a large demonstration at Sproul and a march into the city of Berkeley, the protesters formed a General Assembly that called for a non-violent encampment under the name Occupy Cal. As the encampment was being established, protesters were immediately met with physical violence by the police, including the jabbing and striking of students and others with batons. This assault by UCPD and Alameda County riot police against those peacefully assembled led to the forcible arrests of 39 protesters and one faculty member. Associate Professor Celeste Langan offered her wrist to the police in surrender, saying “arrest me, arrest me,” but was nevertheless aggressively pulled by her hair to the ground and cuffed. This began a series of tense confrontations—punctuated by further police violence—that lasted throughout the night and has persisted on our campus. The spectacle of police brutalizing members of our community does inestimable damage to our integrity, our reputation, and our standing as a public university.

We are appalled by the Chancellor’s account, in his November 10 “Message to the Campus Community,” that the police were “forced to use their batons.” We strenuously object to the charge that protesters—by linking arms and refusing to disperse—engaged in a form of “violence” directed at law enforcement. The protests did not justify the overwhelming use of force and severe bodily assault by heavily armed officers and deputies. Widely-circulated documentation from videos, photographs, and TV news outlets make plainly evident the squad tactics and individual actions of members of the UCPD and Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. This sends a message to the world that UC Berkeley faculty, staff, and student protesters are regarded on their own campus with suspicion and hostility rather than treated as participants in civil society.

We call on the Berkeley administration to immediately put an end to these grotesquely out-scale police responses to peaceful protest. We insist that the administration abandon the premise that the rigid, armed enforcement of a campus regulation, in circumstances lacking any immediate threat to safety, justifies the precipitous use of force.

We call upon the Chancellor to comply fully and in a timely manner with the Public Record Act request made in writing by the ACLU on November 10. We also call upon the Chancellor to initiate an independent investigation, separate from that to be undertaken by the campus Police Review Board, to ensure a fair review of events and procedures to prevent such attacks on free speech from happening in the future.

We also express our concern with the repressive policing that has occurred around the wider Occupy Wall Street movement—including Occupy Oakland, where undue force has led to numerous injuries such as those sustained by Iraq veteran Scott Olsen. In solidarity with Occupy Cal and the Occupy movements around the country, we condemn these police acts unequivocally.

We call for greater attention to the substantive issues raised at the protests on November 9 regarding the privatization of education. With massive cuts in state funding and rising tuition costs across the community college system, the Cal State network, K-12, and the University of California, public education is undergoing a severe divestment. Student debt has reached unprecedented levels as bank profits swell. We decry the growing privatization and tuition increases that are currently heavily promoted by the corporate UC Board of Regents.

We express NO CONFIDENCE in the Regents, who have failed in their responsibility to fight for state funding for public education, and have placed the burden of the budget crisis on the backs of students.

We express NO CONFIDENCE in the willingness of the Chancellor, and other leaders of the UC Berkeley administration, to respond appropriately to student protests, to secure student welfare, and to respect freedom of speech and assembly on the Berkeley campus.


Signed,
Julia Bryan-Wilson, Associate Professor, History of Art
Peter Glazer, Associate Professor, Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies
Gregory Levine, Associate Professor, History of Art

[And here I thought I was verbose!]

Most of those who have signed, by the way, are current active UC faculty, grad students, and workers. And as many have pointed out, this is really an astonishing response given the real risks to their academic careers -- and even their department fortunes -- many of these people are taking. It was an astonishing response when there were only 600 signatories. Now, with over 3 times that many, it's stunning.

On Empathy

[I've been catching up -- sort of -- with overnight events, focusing on Portland (OR) this morning, and witnessing the police stand down at about 6:30 this morning on the Livestream; the elation at the People's Victory in Portland was and is very encouraging. It was almost unbelievable to watch. Haven't been able to follow up on Oakland yet. But the Black Bloc "issue" continues to roil...]

Yesterday, I made a comment suggesting -- but not fleshing out -- my growing empathy with the Oakland Mayor and City Council over their dilemma in dealing with Occupy Oakland and the other pressures they are facing.

I've given it more thought, and though I'm still not completely sure of how this thing is evolving, I'm less and less convinced of the bad intent that is being asserted by both the Council and the Occupation about the other.

On the other hand, I think there really is bad intent on the part of the UC administration toward the students and faculty -- let alone the underpaid and vastly undervalued workers at the University -- at Berkeley (and by extension, the rest of the University system in California), and they seem now to be intent on precipitating a complete implosion of the System. I suppose their ideal is to replace it with Prisons for All.

As I've said, Oakland has been under a crypto-form of martial law for years, the point of which is suppression of Popular Will -- through any means necessary. The Occupation throws that fact back at Authority. They use the term, "De-colonize Oakland." That's basically what it boils down to: it's time to end the colonial oppression of the People of Oakland -- by any means necessary.

Oakland city officials are in a bind in part because they have been doing everything they could possibly imagine doing to meet the demands of their colonial overlords. And who, exactly, are they?

Check out the membership of the Chamber of Commerce. Most of them, of course, are small scale entrepreneurs with little or no power on their own; they've joined with the Major Players in the hopes of getting some crumbs from the table of their betters. This is true of Chambers of Commerce everywhere.

The Major Players in Oakland include the Bank of America and pretty much all the rest of the usual bankster suspects as well as a fairly wide variety of property interests. Landlords. The Owners, in other words.

Included among the Major Players in Oakland must be Kaiser Permanente, the major health care system in the Bay Area (and perhaps in California). Kaiser is ostensibly non-profit (one of the few major players in the healthcare field that is) but it is a huge force in the industry. It is enormously profitable, of course, but because it is non-profit, it doesn't pay taxes. It uses its profits to expand. In other words, it acts very much like a for-profit corporation.

The City Officials have been playing ball with these interests for many years, and they thought they were playing by the rules set for them and they were getting somewhere. Oakland was "turning around." From a dismal Bay Area backwater filled with uppity Negroes, random criminals and others who needn't be considered, it was being transformed into a somewhat rough but "trending" Bay Area destination; it was coming up in the world.

The City was doing everything it could to meet the demands of its high and its mighty, and the physical transformation of parts of the Downtown was remarkable. Not perfect by any means, but clearly "better" than the near ruin that had taken root since the Bad Old Days of the Black Panthers and whatnot.

This is the basic tension today: Oakland's officials have been doing what they thought they were supposed to do to make a better city. And it didn't work.

This is the same sort of economic and social dilemma Americans who have been playing by the rules all these years also face. They did what they thought they were supposed to do and they find they failed. The System failed them. They've seen every bit of gain they've made over the past few decades be taken from them by the very forces they thought they were serving so well all these years.

Everyone -- including the Oakland officials -- is caught in the same trap and dilemma. The Occupy Oakland people are taking a stand against it, and by doing so, they are posing a threat to the Established Order, the Order that has brought on this catastrophe.

Oakland officials must know that they are being squeezed and robbed just as much as their constituents are, but they seem to believe that if they adhere ever more rigorously to the demands of the Owners -- for example, by "clearing out" the riff raff at Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza -- they will be rewarded and things will get better for Oakland, just as individuals facing the Squeeze can be convinced to scapegoat some despised Other (be it Occupy-related or not) for their difficulties.

I have no tolerance for scapegoating under any circumstances, but I can easily understand how it happens. The way to deal with it is to recognize the common situation and focus on what needs to be done rather than focusing on division and blaming one another for those difficulties.

Occupy is trying various means to get past the divisions and scapegoating that is natural in a situation such as this, and the Oakland officials are resisting -- as are many civic officials including those in Sacramento -- because they have a huge personal stake and investment in preserving the status quo. It's not just a monetary investment, though that is often one of the driving factors of mindless adherence to the status quo; among many civic bodies, the emotional investment is even stronger than the pecuniary one. It is not simply a matter of the ability to exercise Power -- though that plays an important role -- it is more deep seated: it is the investment of an entire life's work that is being shown to be "worthless." Decades of public and social service have proved unable to halt the backward march of the 1%; in fact, much of what these high minded officials have been doing has actually enabled the Backward-Movement.

This is a horrifying realization for anyone -- if they ever come to it.

People will naturally resist it and try to hold on as long as they can to what they know and they will do everything in their power to maintain some sense of self-worth in the face of the kind of exposure Occupations all over the world are making possible. It's human nature to do so.

And they will use whatever suppressive tactic they can get their hands on -- in the case of the Occupations, heavy-handed policing -- to enforce their continued status.

But it doesn't work. Every time there is a crack down, there is greater growth of the Movement-Becoming-Revolution. All the keening and garment rending over the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland (still going on with less and less effect) looks silly compared to the destructive actions of the Powers That Be.

Perspective is gained: a broken window is more horrifying than a destroyed generation of young people, than a destroyed neighborhood, than a looted and destroyed country? How so? In context, a broken window is... a broken window. A broken society is a catastrophe.

So while the Oakland Mayor and City Council struggle with the problems they are immersed in, problems they have brought on themselves to some extent, but problems they share with all of those in the Plaza in front of their City Hall (which is true of civic bodies almost everywhere) it helps if their mutual dilemma can be recognized. There's no need to scapegoat one another. There is a need to find common ground -- because they are on the same ground, facing the same forces of destruction.

That's the step in this Revolution that will be the most difficult to take. I don't know whether they can do it in Oakland. But I think they must try, and if what I am hearing about the efforts of the Mayor and her husband in particular are true, then the parties are not as far apart as they might seem to be. As I've said, the wild card is the police chief, who really seems to want to mix it up with as much force and violence as he can muster.

Time will tell...

Crazy Cops

"Jabbing people with batons isn't necessarily violent."



"I really don't believe the chief is aware that his cops go thuggin' in the next town over."



I really don't like posting these things, but cripes, that one is enough to get almost any authoritarian on the planet into a frothing frenzy.

The Violence of Linking Arms

They will regret this till their dying day.

The Birgenau-Bennett Declarations regarding the Violence of Linking Arms is getting a lot of play.

First, it was the University of California, Berkeley, police spokesmouth who put her foot in it by saying:

"The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."

Yes, well. Obviously, she's not very bright, and for that reason alone, she should be given some slack and maybe offered a few remedial social history lessons. Just a thought.

On the other hand, when the Chancellor of the University comes out with this (from Shanghai, no less -- although perhaps appropriately, this being the China Century and all):

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience.

We've got to take a stand. The man isn't ignorant like his police spokesmouth. The man is trying to redefine terms to suit his policies of repression. So if that means that non-violent resistance is now to be defined as "not non-violence", that's what it shall be.

The Devil take the hindmost.

It's simple. Linking arms and refusing to obey commands of Authority is classic non-violent resistance. It's been done for generations upon generations, by all kinds of people all over the world in solidarity against oppression.

For generations and generations.

Interviews with some of those beaten and arrested at Berkeley:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/75040

Non-Violence, NewSpeak, Professors, and The Course of Revolution

One should not engage in Revolution mindlessly. -- Ché Pasa

A Revolution without dancing is a Revolution not worth having. -- Emma Goldman

I would prefer to risk the possibility of dissolution that comes with every encounter of a solid with solution. -- Professor Celeste Langan, UC Berkeley

Watch the woman with the pinkish jacket and dark glasses on the left at the beginning of this video and follow her through the rest of it. I believe that is Professor Langan having an encounter with a solid member of UC's finest, at service protecting and defending his sacred honor, his job, his soul... well, you decide.

Here she is being escorted away from the melee:





Her arrest has caused something of a stir at UC Berkeley (aka "Cal") for the fact that she is nothing if not non-violent, and she is apparently very well known and well-beloved on campus. Even the UC Police who beat the shit out of people near her as well as many others on Wednesday should know her.

But, as it happens, they were only doing their job because, as both the Chancellor of the University and the UC Police spokesperson are wont to say,

"The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/10/MNH21LTC4D.DTL#ixzz1dRkWwEE0

Captain Margo, of course, was only following orders. From the top.

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. --
Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor
George Breslauer, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Harry LeGrande, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

They linked arms, you see. A clear and present danger to the officers of the law, and an act of violence on its face.



On its face.

Well. Isn't that something. If they had only known that the absolutely classic nonviolent resistance tactic of :linking arms and forming a human chain: was henceforth declared Violent at Cal, I'm sure the students -- and at least one professor -- wouldn't have done it or wouldn't have been there at all.

If they had only known.

The problem of course is that non-violent resistance tactics are very well known, and the efforts of the UC administration -- and civic administrations "tired" of the Occupy Movement -- have to come up with some way to declare non-violent protest and occupations to be by definition "violent."

The killing of the man in Oakland is being held up as a perfect rationale for driving the Occupation out of the Plaza; but they said the same about the window breaking and graffiti and those awful trash fires on November 2. In Portland, they have decided to evict the Occupation on Sunday because apparently two people overdosed on some illicit substance or other.

Throughout the South, word has spread about the constant peeing and pooping of the Occupiers, as was true in Eureka, CA -- hilariously.



There's always something.

The course of the Revolution will continue changing in the face of the continually ratcheted up official violence against it. This is how these Revolutionary movements always proceed. It is never easy.

And Revolution should never be entered into mindlessly.

And no Revolution is worth having without dancing.

Why I'm Not A Fan of the Spokes Council Model -- Part: And Another Thing

There have now been two "official" Spokes Council meeting with minutes posted at NYCGA; they're doing better at recording minutes and posting them than the GA has done lately (they're up to November 6, progress though hardly timely), but there are -- so far as I can find -- still no archived Livestreams of either Spokes Councils (at all) or GAs (since Nov 2). I must offer the caveat, however, that there are many potential locations for these meeting records to be archived. I've only checked the ones that are announced; if they are not there and easily at hand (specifically at OccupyNYC's Livestream channel) I move on to other things.

From the minutes that are posted, it's clear that the Spokes Council isn't functioning -- because it hasn't been "established" yet. As of Wednesday night's Spokes Council mash up, the goal was to "establish" by next Monday. The problem is one of sorting: who is and who is not "Operations." Ah. This is something of a discovery for would be Spokes Council applicants.

You can apply all you want, but that doesn't mean your group will be eligible to be a member of the Spokes Council. The Spokes Council that was authorized by the GA on October 28 is to be made up only of "operations" working groups and caucuses. "Movement" working groups and caucuses ("while deeply valued") are not authorized to join the Spokes Council.

Deciding what is "operations" and what is... "not operations"... has consumed both of the recorded Spokes Council meetings, and no doubt will consume tonight's meeting (ie: Friday, November 11, 2011) as well, because they didn't get through the list of applicants on Monday or Wednesday before the meetings broke up in high dudgeon and acrimony. Or so it seemed from the written record.

Of course this is an extremely high stakes and high stress process; people know instinctively what is really going on, no matter how much it is couched in high-minded "inclusive" verbiage, cant and propaganda.

On Wednesday, the facilitators actually used the term "stakeholders" to describe the appropriate members of the Spokes Council. Yes. "Stakeholders" -- in the government/non profit corporate realms I'm all too familiar with -- is code for "owners" and their handmaidens, running dogs and lackeys. It's meant to mean "all those who will be affected" by the policies and actions forthcoming, but of course that isn't what it is in practice.

It's about the "owners" -- or rather, about the "ownership class".

When I saw the word "stakeholders" popping up several times in the Wednesday minutes, I just shuddered. "OMG, what are they doing?"

Well, it isn't a mystery. It hasn't been a mystery from the beginning. They are deliberately sorting themselves into an "elect" and an "unelect." That they are doing it in the open, and fairly straightforwardly (though I expect at least some of those involved either as subjects or objects have no idea what's going on) is I suppose to their credit.

I think it is funny -- not haha -- that the response to those who object to this process is either "You're free to leave" or "Anyone can form their own Spokes Council." (But this is the only one that's authorized by the GA. So sit down. And shut up. The authoritarian subtext of all of this is delightful. Not.)

That's really been the only response from Leadership to any objection whatsoever at this point. And yes, not only have the facilitators become defacto Leaders, there's a whole cadre of instigators of the Spokes Council model who "circulate" constantly through the throngs submitting their applications for membership in the "Elect". What their precise function is, who can say? I guess it depends on who needs to know.

At Monday's meeting, they said they authorized 15 Spokes Council operations groups (but I think I only counted 12, there being some doubt expressed regarding three) by acclamation, in other words, "these are no brainers, eh, so let's just say they're 'operations' and be done with it. Consensus? Yay!"

These were, of course, 15 pre-selected inner cadre, effectively Politburo, member groups and their Spokes. That was obvious. Their selection probably had more to do with "ownership" status than it did with actual "operations."

The rest of the applicants had to go through a process of discovery and discussion among the "elect" and the "unelect" to determine whether there was consensus sufficient to include them among the higher of the would-be mighty (in formation.) That's where things got very tense indeed.

Names were called, invective was hurled, and strong emotions were expressed about the nature of some of the groups and the nature of the process of their selection -- or unselection -- as the case may be.

The charge of "racism" was heard more than once, along with some other indelicate charges.

People who brought up issues about the opacity and exclusivity of -- say -- the Finance Working Group (something that's been complained of many times prior to the development of Spokes Councils) were simply brushed aside: "We are not discussing what may have happened in the past, we are discussing how to go forward."

And so it went, one by one.

The rebellion against this process grew and grew, but there was no stopping it once it was under way. And that, of course, is the key to understanding how power works and using it to your advantage.

You set up your System and you manage to get it authorized and started, and once that's happened, it continues on its own until and unless there is a revolt against it that is as powerful as the revolt or revolution it originally came out of. Once started, the System cannot be easily stopped.

This is one reason why the Occupation Revolution has been able to continue and grow no matter what else happens, and why I predict it will continue no matter how extensive the internal and external efforts to suppress it or control it might become. Once begun it cannot be stopped -- at least not easily and not completely. It becomes part of the zeitgeist, if you will.

(Speaking of, the Zeitgeist Movement's presence is diminished but still apparent among the Occupations. As is, to a somewhat lesser extent, the campaigning on behalf of Ron Paul. Both of which were the actual co-optation efforts going on from the beginning of the current round of Occupations in this country... What has diminished to the point of almost complete absence is the Marxist contingent; the communists are for all intents and purposes gone; the socialists are still around but very subdued. This may change if the Spokes Council model gains currency beyond New York.)

Very early in the Occupy Wall Street development process, I said that it was my belief that the General Assembly was the surest inoculation against hijacking and co-optation of the Movement. It was my belief that hijacking couldn't take place and co-optation was impossible as long as the GA was functioning "properly."

Others pointed out that the GA model was actually very frail, and a dedicated group of no more than 6 determined individuals could easily overcome the built-in protections of the GA process and take over an individual Occupation and turn it toward their agenda. I didn't deny that was possible -- in fact, it was self-evident -- but I didn't believe it would be possible to co-opt the entire Movement that way. Someone who was determined to do so would have to go to each one, pull the same trick, and move on, and there would have to be infiltrators with the same agenda at all the several hundred Occupations in this country and the more than a thousand abroad. It was physically unlikely if not entirely impossible.

I'm rethinking my premise. I have seen repeated hijackings of the local GA -- which was very easy to do because there were no clear operational guidelines for GAs and hardly anybody associated with the local Occupation had any idea how the process worked. At the time, there was very little information and no training available. When I introduced some of it, more people "got it," but more people "getting it" also meant that those who had designated themselves as the local Occupation's "Owners" -- though that term is never used -- felt threatened, and they set out to ensure that their control of the local Occupation would never be in jeopardy or lapse. So far, they have been successful. And they've done it by essentially driving out any competition for authority and control.

Consequently many of the people who were objecting most loudly -- after being silenced through many different efforts, from outright banning to deletion to insult -- left and went to Oakland. It's not at all clear what the local "owners" want -- except to be in charge, in perpetuity. They have presented no agenda or vision for the future, they simply want to lord it over everyone else, and there are always any number of people who like being lorded over! It is human nature.

I have witnessed with my own eyes how the process of direct democracy can be easily hijacked for demagoguery and worse. This is something the Ancient Athenian innovators of direct democracy found out to their chagrin and mortal peril thousands of years ago. They were not able to resolve the internal systemic problem. Ultimately, the answer was to abolish it and institute some form of Council-Dictatorship-Monarch.

Which seems to be the path followed by every democratic revolution, including our own American Constitutional Republic variety there of.

Does this mean the Anarchic model doesn't work and can't work? I don't know. I'm not convinced that it can't work at all, but scale is the primary issue.

I can see how the scale problem became paramount in New York because the Occupation became huge and completely unwieldy. Even five thousand participants is too many on a regular basis, and they were up into the tens of thousands. You can't operate direct democracy on that scale. But splitting into more manageable parts didn't seem to work either -- for one thing, they were still too big, and for another, they were too vague.

What seems to have happened is that the GA process gradually broke down and became paralyzed; I witnessed part of that in the controversy over paying the drummers for equipment losses (but the controversy was over much more than that.) Money, in general, was (and is) a huge problem for OWS because they have so much of it in New York and no adequate controls over it. Not only do they have money out the ying-yang (well over half a million now), but they have more supplies than they know what to do with. They have a surplus of riches and no comprehensive, understandable, and transparent means of dealing with it.

The Operations Spokes Council is basically intended as a way to manage the surpluses, the abundance, the money.

That seems to be its primary function.

To get the money issues out of the hands of the GA.

But that means that the Operations Spokes Council becomes a defacto Board of Directors, which in turn transforms the Occupation into a standard organization.

What's the point of that?
------------------------------------------------


Meanwhile in Oakland -- and now in neighboring Berkeley -- they're wrestling with a very different and immediate set of conditions and problems. The situation is getting very tense very quickly. The recent shooting at Frank Ogawa Plaza -- now thought to have been of someone who had been staying at the encampment -- is having extraordinary repercussions. The city is quite publicly preparing for a Final Solution to the Occupation Problem; they say they will not tolerate the presence of the Occupation any longer; the Occupants are asked to leave voluntarily, but if they don't... force may be applied.

In Berkeley, the situation is by turns very grave and surprisingly light-hearted. How the issue of police brutality will be addressed remains to be seen. So far, there's been no official acknowledgement that brutality even happened, despite the viral videos and the hospitalized studentia. Every agency is denying culpability for what happened, though they won't acknowledge anything happened except clearance of the forbidden tents, and the students are apparently not persisting. It's an open and fluid situation at this point, and Occupy Oakland and Occupy San Francisco have expressed their solidarity with the Berkeley students -- whatever they eventually choose to do.

At any rate, it is apparently the standard media narrative that any violence whatever that can be associated with the Occupations -- no matter its source -- is the "fault" of the Occupations.

Of course!

-------------------------------

An even more disgusting view of what happened at Berkeley yesterday afternoon. It didn't get any better at night. Note, the officers involved are a combination of UC Police and Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies. Both agencies are fully culpable for the brutality.

Berkeley Students Speak Out

An Open Letter to the Administration of the University of California Berkeley



Dear Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor LeGrande,



You should all resign—now.



On Tuesday, you sent a message to students informing us that we would not be allowed to set up encampments or occupy campus buildings. You quoted a passage from the student code of conduct that prohibits “[a]ny activities such as pulling fire alarms, occupying buildings, setting up encampments, graffiti, or other destructive actions that disrupt or interfere with anyone's ability to conduct regular activities—go to class, study, carry out their research etc.” In this same message, you claimed that UC Berkeley shares “many of the highest principles associated with the OWS movement” and aims to provide “a model of the right to free speech, assembly and activism.”



We could not agree with you more: UC Berkeley does share the principles of the OWS movement. In fact, we were instrumental in sparking the wave of occupations—yes, occupations—that is now sweeping the globe. Recall November 20th, 2009: the students who occupied Wheeler Hall that day were not fringe radicals or outsiders, they were students who cared so deeply about the university that they were willing to be dragged away in handcuffs for it. They spoke for all of us, and now we are answering back. The model of activism you refer to: it’s us. We're all occupiers now. Don’t patronize us, then, by telling us how we ought to behave. Time and again, our protests have been met with batons and guns and admin-speak about “protecting us” and obeying the “limits of protest.” After three years of brutality, we now know exactly who is being protected, and from what.



Yesterday, the police force you sent to disperse us beat and maimed several dozen students, faculty, and staff. When UCPD requested reciprocal aid, they were reinforced by OPD and the Alameda County Sheriffs Department—the same officers who shot a young Iraq veteran in the head with a tear-gas canister last week at Occupy Oakland, in violation of their own rules of engagement. He still has not regained the ability to speak. This is how you would protect us: with blood and fear. We are appalled, but not surprised, that your police beat an English Department graduate student so badly yesterday that he was rushed into urgent care. This is how you would uphold the legacy of the free speech movement. Let us remind you: we are the free speech movement. We are speaking, and you are beating us to the ground.



About the “regular activities” of students at UC Berkeley: we do not agree that these activities can be limited to going to class, studying, and doing research. First, because this school is the center of our lives, which are richer and more meaningful than is allowed for by the student code of conduct. Second, because there can be no “regular activity” in a time of crisis. We are not blind to the world; we know that it is falling apart, torn to shreds by the profit-hungry elite of the the 1%. We know that you have been tasked with operating the university in crisis mode; we know this means ensuring that the 1% do not lose their financial stake in the university and its affiliate industries—the student loan racket, for example. We see right through you. It is you, on the other hand, who mistake our purposes: when we occupy buildings and set up encampments, these are our regular activities. The only people interfering with the business of the university are the police; for that, they should be banned from campus permanently and immediately.



You describe UC Berkeley as “a place where the best and brightest youth, staff and faculty from all socioeconomic backgrounds work collectively to solve world problems.” We wholeheartedly agree. However, by this definition, it is you who have violated the code of conduct; you are the ones who should be driven out of Sproul Plaza, not us. Make no mistake: there can be no “regular activity” when a militarized police force is allowed to brutalize students with impunity, nor can there be any peace so long as you remain at the helm of the university. Take a lesson from history (Egypt, for example) and step down now.



Signed,



The Students of the University of California Berkeley

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3102387&sk=notes

Another shot of the Alameda County UC Berkeley Coward Deputies Police at "Work"

UC Berkeley, November 9, 2011, outside Sproul Hall.



UPDATE: There was some confusion about what law enforcement agency the Cowards were part of. The shoulder patches I saw close ups of in earlier videos were clearly Alameda County Deputies. But Justin Elliot over at Salon has been digging a bit deeper, and he found out that the ones beating up the people in this video are actually UC Berkeley cops based on the difference in shoulder patches. There is one Alameda Deputy, however, who seems to be involved in beating the shit out of these students. Still checking...

Videos from a day of confrontations at UC Berkeley

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/10/video-series-november-9-day-of-action-occupy-cal/

The Daily Californian has been covering the events at Berkeley very well, but I can sense it is hard for them.

Ever since the enormous tuition increases of a couple of years ago, the Berkeley campus has been in a more or less continuous uproar. The Occupy Movement has just come to the University, and the tumult level has gone through the roof. Last night, for example, delegations from Occupy San Francisco and Occupy Oakland joined the Berkeley students to confront the administration and the police. I particularly like the response to the Vice Chancellor's speech: "Bull. Shit."



Yes. Well.

It's hard to explain, but for me all this is very difficult to watch.

They Come By Night

One of the characteristics of the repression of the current spate of uprisings known as "Occupy" is that the repression typically occurs in the dead of night. For some reason, our rulers prefer to do their business out of public view.

Last night and into this morning, the Center of Repression was on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, the home place of the Free Speech Movement that got under way in the same location (not just on the same campus, but in exactly the same location in Sproul Plaza) some 47 years ago. Mario gave his stirring speech -- from which this excerpt is taken



on December 2, 1964, but the protest began in September of 1964, when the University administration decided that "free speech" (specifically to talk about and/or raise money for civil rights campaigns and to engage in critical dialogue about the Vietnam War) was verboten on or near the campus. It was actually quite a complicated ruling that in retrospect seems ridiculously bureaucratic and confused, and the student response to it was almost as baroque.

What Mario was going on about in his December 2 speech on the steps of Sproul Hall was the take over of the Administration offices located inside Sproul Hall through a sit in (what we now call an "Occupy"), an action that commenced immediately after the speech.

All day -- and all night -- there have been ongoing #OccupyCal protests, administration "negotiations," and police crackdowns. The video above shows police action yesterday afternoon. It's fairly rare to see these kinds of operations in the daytime, but UC police have been training in the open in the day time for just this kind of thing.

The festive day of protest at Berkeley started out like this:



Turned into this back on campus:



The action got much more intense after dark:

On the steps of Sproul Hall:



On the lawn:



Cowards:



Precursors: I yabber a lot about the Free Speech Movement of almost 50 years ago because it was so meaningful to me as a rebellious youth at the time. There have been many precursors to the current uprisings, though, some of them much more recent. This Revolt and Revolution did not emerge from a vacuum. The ground for it has been prepared for years. The video below depicts a protest over UC system tuition hikes that took place at Wheeler Hall on the UC Berkeley campus two years ago. Note the evocative nature of what was going on then; note how much of it has been incorporated into the Occupy Movement of today:



And this is what it ultimately came from: